Assessing the economic value and vulnerability of nature ... · actually safe to do so. Given that the most popular activities of visitors include bushwalking, fishing and picnicking

Fire and Adaptive Research Report no. 94 A report by Victoria University, Melbourne for the

Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre

Assessing the economic value and vulnerability of

nature-based tourism in the Ovens and Alpine area

of NE Victoria

Insert subtitle (use Shift+Enter for a forced line break)

Acknowledgements

This research has been contracted by the Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre (Bushfire CRC Ltd) for the

Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI)

Authors

Joanne Pyke, Min Jiang, Terry de Lacy, Paul Whitelaw, Roger Jones, Victoria University

Contributors

Steven Parker, Bruce Rasmussen, Peter Parbery, Alexandra Law, Faith Ong, Nella Hendriyetty and James

Dredge.

We also wish to acknowledge the contribution of Tourism Research Australia (TRA) for supplying relevant

visitor survey data and undertaking analysis on that data.

Photo credit

Photography contribution: Salahuddin Ahmad (https://www.flickr.com/photos/neelelora/albums)

© The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning February 2015

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

ISBN 978-1-76047-446-1 (Print)

ISBN 978-1-76047-447-8 (pdf/online)

Disclaimer

This publication may be of assistance to you, but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

Accessibility

If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format, please telephone the

DELWP Customer Service Centre on 136186, email [email protected],

or via the National Relay Service on 133 677 www.relayservice.com.au. This document is

also available on the internet at www.delwp.vic.gov.au.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.relayservice.com.au/

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/

Assessing the economic value and vulnerability of nature-based tourism in

the Ovens and Alpine area of NE Victoria

i

Acronyms and key terms ................................................................................................................................ ii

BFCRC - Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ iii

Section One: Introduction, Background and Overview. .............................................................................. 1

1. 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1. 2 Background .................................................................................................................................... 1

1. 3 The economic contribution of tourism ........................................................................................ 3

1. 4 The Project Team ........................................................................................................................... 3

1. 5 Approach and Method ................................................................................................................... 4

1. 6 Report Overview ............................................................................................................................ 5

Section Two: The value and character of tourism in Harrietville ............................................................... 6

2. 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6

2. 2 National, state, regional and local tourism value ....................................................................... 6

2. 3 The Harrietville Visitor Survey ..................................................................................................... 7

2. 4 Mapping tourism value ............................................................................................................... 20

2. 5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 26

Section Three: Estimating the economic impacts of a bushfire on the Victorian Alpine Region ......... 27

3. 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 27

3. 2 Basic results and assumptions.................................................................................................. 27

3. 3 Impacts on Harrietville ................................................................................................................ 32

3. 4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 34

Section Four: Tourism Vulnerability and Resilience Assessment for Harrietville ................................. 35

4. 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 35

4. 2 Conceptual framework ................................................................................................................ 35

4. 3 Key findings of the vulnerability/resilience (V/R) assessment ............................................... 39

4. 4 Summary of findings ................................................................................................................... 49

Section Five: Implications for policy and strategies ................................................................................. 51

5. 1. Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 51

5. 2. Policy and Planning .................................................................................................................... 51

5. 3. Awareness raising and communications .................................................................................. 54

5. 4. Structural issues ......................................................................................................................... 55

5. 5. Business Management ................................................................................................................ 55

5. 6. Research ....................................................................................................................................... 55

5. 7. Concluding comments ................................................................................................................ 56

References ..................................................................................................................................................... 58

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................. 60

Appendix 1 Map and time series of the progress of the 2013 fires ......................................................... 60

Appendix 2 Harrietville Visitor Survey ....................................................................................................... 61

Appendix 3 In-depth interviews schedule .................................................................................................. 65

Contents

ii Assessing the economic value and vulnerability of nature-based tourism in


(I-O) modelling Input Output Model

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

CEMP Community Emergency Management Plan

CFA Country Fire Authority

Consumption Household expenditure, government expenditure and inventories of all final

goods produced in the region

DEPI Department of Environment and Primary Industries

DSF Destination Sustainability Framework

EMV Emergency Management Victoria

Exports All final goods that are produced and not consumed in the region

GRP Gross Regional Product

GSP Gross State Product

IVS International Visitor Survey

IPPC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LGA Local Government Areas

NVIVO A qualitative data analysis (QDA) computer software package

by QSR International

NVS National Visitor Survey

Output Output is used synonymously with ‘production’ and refers to the measure of

gross revenue of goods and services

SES State Emergency Service

SLA Statistical Local Areas

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

Tourism spend All tourist related spending on final goods produced in the region

TRA Tourism Research Australia

TSA Tourism Satellite Accounts

V/R assessment Vulnerability and Resilience Assessment

Acronyms and key terms



iii

BFCRC - Executive Summary

Project background

This report was prepared by Victoria University, Melbourne, for the Cooperative Research Centre for

Bushfires Ltd. (BFCRC) with the aim to assess the economic value and vulnerability of the nature-

based tourism industry in the Ovens and Alpine area of North East Victoria. Many communities in this

region, such as Bright, Harrietville and the Mt Hotham area, derive economic benefit through

production, tourism and other nature-based industries from their proximity and links to public land.

These communities have been severely affected by major bushfires in 2002/03, 2006/07, 2009 and

again in 2013. Impacts have included the tragic loss of life, destruction of property, fire damage to

extensive areas of bushland, as well as severe impacts on tourism flows and revenue.

For the purpose of this research, nature-based tourism refers to all tourism activities that are climate

dependent and/or rely on a natural setting. Most tourism in the Ovens and Alpine area of North East

Victoria is nature based, with bushwalking and cycling in the summer, alpine skiing in the winter, as

well as wine and food tourism throughout the year. Bushfires pose a significant threat to tourism flows

and revenue from such activities, not only because of the direct impacts of a bushfire event, but also

because fire can quickly destroy the natural assets on which this type of tourism depends. With a

specific focus on the township of Harrietville as the case study, this project aimed to assess the

nature (scope, distribution) and value of nature-based tourism to communities located in and around

Harrietville, to assess its vulnerability to bushfire as well as to identify options for increasing its

resilience. The research was driven by two main objectives:

Establish a framework for determining the characteristics, value and vulnerability to bushfire of nature-

based tourism.

Define and map the characteristics, value and vulnerability to bushfire of nature-based tourism for

Harrietville and selected communities in the Ovens-Alpine area.

Methodology

The two research objectives were addressed by a mixed methods approach that involved three

integrated research activities: An assessment of the tourism profile and economic value of tourism in

the Alpine Shire and Harrietville; an estimate of the economic impact of a bushfire in the Victorian

Alpine Region; and a vulnerability/resilience (V/R) assessment of tourism in Harrietville.

These three research activities were based on the analysis of both secondary and primary data.

Specific methods included an analysis of visitor and business data from the International Visitor

Survey (IVS) and the National Visitor Survey (NVS) obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics

and Tourism Research Australia, community consultations, a visitor survey of Harrietville, Input

Output (I/O) economic analysis, and in-depth interviews with tourism stakeholders in Harrietville.

Results

The key findings and outcomes of the research are presented here in this executive summary to give

a broad overview, while the full report presents the research activities and findings in more detail. The

following report also details the framework applied in undertaking an economic valuation of tourism in

small rural areas and a vulnerability/resilience assessment to bushfire risk. The intention is that this

framework can be applied in other tourism destinations facing similar climate related risks and threats.

The value and character of tourism in Harrietville

The findings of the Harrietville visitor survey identified a cohort of visitors that is well educated, middle

class and who come largely from metropolitan Melbourne. The survey results also suggest that the

visitor population is relatively mature, experienced and familiar with both Harrietville and the North

East. They appear to make a major contribution to the tourism economy in the region. Axiomatically,

these results confirm the perceived value of Harrietville and the North East to the respondents. They

visit for several reasons, but such reasons are endemic, most notably for opportunities to undertake

both passive and active recreation in the wilderness, typically in groups, with family and friends.

iv Assessing the economic value and vulnerability of nature-based tourism in


Based on the activities undertaken by visitors and visitor ‘spend’, there is a dynamic and

entrepreneurial tourism sector in Harrietville that capitalises on visitor traffic in ways that ‘value add’ to

the nature-based recreation undertaken in the region. The visitor survey indicates that on average,

each visitor spends approximately $184 per day. Based on an analysis of 10 years of IVS and NVS

data together with an analysis of census data it was estimated that in 2013 tourists spent $6.3 million

when visiting Harrietville.

Visitors are primarily aware of fires that have affected Harrietville and that there is a risk of fire over

the summer period. The dominant response to perceived fire risk is to visit an alternative destination

highlighting the importance of accurate information about fire in order to maximise visitation when it is

actually safe to do so. Given that the most popular activities of visitors include bushwalking, fishing

and picnicking in fire-prone areas surrounding the township, this lack of awareness represents a risk

to visitors but also highlights the vulnerability of visitation when fire risk is present.

Estimating the Economic Impact of a Bushfire on the Victorian Alpine Region

Based on estimated visitor spending in Harrietville and the region, an input-output analysis was

undertaken to estimate the possible economic impact of fire. The results indicate that a bushfire:

• May result in a decline between $m 18.5 to $m 55.4 in output for the Alpine region;

• May result in a decline between 107 to 321 total jobs for the Alpine region; and

• For a visitor spend of $6.3m in Harrietville a decline in output from a bushfire may range between

$510,000 and $1,530,000.

V/R Assessment of Tourism in Harrietville

The V/R assessment for Harrietville was conducted using the modified Destination Sustainability

Framework (DSF). Originally developed by Calgaro (2010) and Calgaro, Lloyd, and Dominey-Howes

(2014), the DSF was modified to include aspects of the tourism system model (Gunn, 1994; Leiper,

2004) as well as the climate adaptation portfolio for the tourism and recreation sector by Scott, de

Freitas, and Matzarakis (2009)1. Based on this framework, Harrietville’s tourism system was analysed

to identify the external risks, the constraining factors increasing vulnerability, the enabling factors

increasing resilience and the implications for policy and strategy.

External risks for Harrietville’s tourism system

In addition to the overall bushfire risk, the identified external risks for Harrietville’s tourism system

included factors such as sensationalised media coverage, disruptions caused by fire-fighting

operations, as well as road and track closures. Other important risks (related to but not directly

triggered by bushfires) were identified as heat waves, unreliable snow seasons, preventative control

burns, as well as the underlying progression of climate change.

Key constraining factors increasing vulnerability in Harrietville

Key factors identified as increasing Harrietville’s vulnerability include:

• A strong economic dependence on nature-based tourism and tourism transit with limited options for

diversification;

• A sensitive destination image threatened by sensationalised media coverage of fire events;

• Fragmented governance processes which have resulted in poor communication with all tourism

system stakeholders and decisions that have not met the expectations of the local community and

tourism industry;

• Barriers to building development due to a lack of sewerage infrastructure;

1 The modification of DSF for tourism vulnerability and resilience assessment in the context of climate change was made to be applied in an

AusAID Australian Development Research Award Project Pacific Tourism – Climate Adaptation Project (PT-CAP) (ADRA0800029). The key

research team that contributed to the development of the modified DSF include Dr Emma Calgaro, Dr Louise Munk Klint, Dr Min Jiang,

Professor Terry Delacy, and Professor Dale Dominey-Howes.



v

• Limited internet connectivity affecting business marketing and communications;

• Environmental change caused by the increase in the frequency, intensity and timing of fires with

particular effects on obligate seeders such as Alpine Ash with consequences for the entire

ecosystem;

• The social and emotional effects of living in a bushfire-risk area;

• Weaknesses in bushfire preparedness of both businesses and visitors; and,

• Lack of communication between stakeholders during emergency and recovery.

Key enabling factors increasing resilience in Harrietville

• Harrietville can be characterised as a politically savvy, committed and organised town that is

tenacious and well resourced;

• Recent and successful focus on community strengthening initiatives enhance community

engagement in planning, and strengthen relationships between all tourism stakeholders;

• Low seasonality and year-round visitation increasing resilience and assisting with recovery to

bushfire events;

• Diversification within the nature-based market and strong repeat visitation;

• A regional tourism marketing and strategy strengthening the tourism product and image as well as

providing a voice for tourism in critical situations;

• Emergency responses that are widely recognised as highly successful in the protection of life and

property; and,

• Adaptations in policy and planning with the aim to improve relationships, communication and

engagement for bushfire planning, emergency management and recovery.

Implications for policy and strategies

The V/R assessment for Harrietville’s tourism system highlighted fourteen key implications for

resilience building in policy and strategy. These priorities are intended as a response specifically to

the vulnerabilities identified in Harrietville but also as an example for small tourism destinations more

broadly. These priorities are categorised within the five areas of: policy and planning; awareness

raising and communications; business management; infrastructure development; and, evaluation and

monitoring. In summary they include:

POLICY AND PLANNING

The development of a community tourism development plan

This assessment identifies opportunities to minimise economic vulnerability through tourism

development and there have been gaps and opportunities for the development of visitor services

identified by business operators and the community. Capturing these opportunities, however, has

implications for the town’s size and character and raises questions about the type and mix of

developments that might be encouraged. These questions could be usefully considered by local

operators and community members as part of a community tourism planning process.

Strengthen Harrietville’s destination image as a year-round destination

An important resilience characteristic of tourism in Harrietville is that the township is relatively less

sensitive to tourism seasonality even though it does experience variations in visitation throughout the

year. This seasonality in visitation could be reduced, however, with strategies such as the

development and promotion of new walking trails, and services for cyclists, and encouraging the

development of back-packer accommodation. The implementation of these strategies has the

potential to contribute to higher visitation in order to strengthen annual tourism revenues beyond the

summer period when bushfire risk is likely to threaten visitation.

vi Assessing the economic value and vulnerability of nature-based tourism in


Strengthen Harrietville’s image as a fire prepared destination

While Harrietville receives a large number of repeat visitors who tend to come back regardless of

potential fire risk, an image as a fire prepared destination is crucial for Harrietville to attract new

visitors and retain repeat visitors who are increasingly concerned about the bushfire risk. Specific

marketing campaigns may be developed to promote Harrietville as a resilient destination to fire risk,

and collective approaches to promotion may be explored by working with the regional tourism board

North East Tourism.

Improve disaster preparedness and further build capacity in emergency responses by

community, and industry levels

Although the community and tourism businesses in Harrietville demonstrated general awareness of

fire risk, the assessment suggests that community complacency in relation to fire planning needs to

be better addressed. This requires the community and tourism businesses to take the initiative, for

example, to attend information events offered by government, to use the resources available for them,

and to take actions to plan for the increased risks resulting from a changing climate. At the same time,

government needs to be innovative and proactive in engaging the community and tourism businesses

in fire planning and management.

Develop mechanisms for better use of local knowledge in bushfire preparedness and

management

The importance of local knowledge in natural resource management, disaster management and

emergency management is well reported in the literature (Mercer, Dominey-Howes, Kelman, & Lloyd,

2007). Current research in disaster risk reduction also recognises the challenges in how local,

traditional, and indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge can be effectively combined to reduce

vulnerability to environmental hazards (Mercer et al., 2007). The vulnerability/resilience assessment

of Harrietville reveals that the local tourism community faces such challenges. Policy and planning for

fire preparedness, management and risk minimisation could usefully incorporate input from tourism

operators and visitors in order to better understand areas of high tourism value and to prioritise

strategies in alignment with the tourism economy. While it has been stronger focus by all stakeholders

on incorporating local knowledge in policy development, there is an opportunity for ‘a constant

process of collaboration and exchange’ (Mercer et al., 2007, p. 253), to facilitate effective

communication and develop mutual respect among all stakeholders, and to enable them to learn from

each other. To this end, communication again lies at the centre of building resilience.

AWARENESS RAISING AND COMMUNICATIONS

Improve fire awareness and preparedness of visitors

The assessment also reveals weakness in bushfire awareness and preparedness by visitors, which

needs greater emphasis in future capacity building efforts. The visitor survey data showed that more

than half of the visitors surveyed are not aware of any information about what to do in case of a

bushfire in Harrietville. This brought to light the need to provide awareness programmes on risk and

emergency responses for tourists. There is a particular need for effective and targeted communication

and awareness with four visitor types. These include:

• visitors staying in holiday homes where it is difficult to obtain hands-on assistance and timely

information in emergency compared to those staying with tourism operators;

• first time visitors who show low awareness of the incidence of fire and measures to prepare for fire;

• campers in the State and National parks, particularly those who are international visitors;

• a small segment (14%) of ‘habitual’ visitors who were also unaware of fire risk

Continue to improve communication between public and private sectors and between

government agencies

Stakeholders across government, industry and community have made remarkable progress in

improving communication for better emergency management for Harrietville. Support given to the

establishment of the Harrietville Community Forum, and the Alpine Shire Resilience Committee for

example, has contributed to building considerable good will between the community and government

agencies and has directed efforts towards a collaborative planning process.



vii

Continued government support for sustaining the community/inter-agency forums is a high priority for

future planning and minimising the social and economic impacts of fire on the community.

Refine communications and consultation in relation to road closure

When road closure becomes necessary for safety reasons, improvements are necessary to ensure

that road signage is not misleading and provides adequate and accurate information about closure

including details of closure points and opening times. This is particularly necessary to minimise the

time periods in which visitors are unnecessarily deterred.

Media representations of fire

Strengthen communications with media to minimise misleading or unnecessarily sensationalised

representations of fire. For example, the 2013 fires were named as ‘the Harrietville Fire’ when in fact

the fire originated in Smoko and travelled around Harrietville. This name has contributed to a

misleading impression of Harrietville as being damaged by fire when in fact the township was not

burnt. In terms of encouraging visitation, it is a priority to ensure that media reporting of fire is both

geographically accurate and sensitive to its impact on visitor impressions. Alternative names could be

found that are descriptive yet don’t unnecessarily tarnish visitor perceptions of the area.

Post-fire communications strategy

One element of tourism planning should incorporate the development of a post-fire communications

strategy that would accurately inform visitors about accessibility of the town and the local area and

encourage return visitation when safe to do so.

STRUCTURAL ISSUES

Address infrastructure barriers – internet connectivity and sewerage

Following from a tourism planning process, prioritise and address infrastructure barriers that are

currently limiting tourism development. These include the development of a mains sewerage system

as well as improvements in internet connectivity.

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

Support business planning by tourism operators

While tourism businesses in Harrietville have been financially impacted by fires, these impacts have

not led to business closures and have largely been absorbed and accepted as part of life living in the

mountains. Futures fires, however, may diminish the capacity to absorb these financial shocks. An

important resilience measure is to support and encourage business planning to better plan and

prepare for the financial impacts of fire given the likelihood that fires in the area will increase in

frequency and intensity.

RESEARCH

Evaluation

Following from above, the establishment of the Alpine Shire Resilience committee and the Harrietville

Community Forum have both been widely applauded as being highly successful in improving

communications, good will, and planning coordination between agencies, community and industry.

Future support of these forums would usefully include an evaluation component in order to capture

and transfer learnings from the implementation of the forums as well as to identify how the forums

might continuously improve and be sustainable over the longer term.

Development of a ‘Small tourism destination valuation and fire risk adaptation tool kit”

Harrietville is one of many small destinations that generally lack the range of resources to develop a

tourism adaptation strategy. It is suggested that Victorian Government agencies develop a “Small

tourism destination valuation and fire risk adaptation tool kit” to assist similar small tourism

destinations to Harrietville develop adaptation strategies to risk and hence build their resilience to

future bushfires. This tool kit would describe a framework and methodology to evaluate tourism value,

assess vulnerability and resilience and to develop adaptation strategies.

viii Assessing the economic value and vulnerability of nature-based tourism in


Replication

The project has considerable potential for replication and each of the methodologies implemented as

part of a mixed method approach could be implemented as individual strategies that could inform

various aspects of resilience building in small tourism destinations.

Conclusion

The research for this report has clearly highlighted the enormous importance of tourism to the

livelihoods of Harrietville residents and the risk bushfire poses to these livelihoods. It has further

highlighted the crucial importance of local tourism industry and wider community to greatly enhance

their adaptation to risk most importantly bushfire risk. To this end, we propose a series of strategies to

effectively adapt to the economic impacts of fire and to build resilience into the future. One of these

strategies is to transfer the learnings from this project to other small destinations through the

development of resources that will enable other small destination communities to develop a tourism

adaptation plan.

1 Assessing the economic value and vulnerability of nature-based tourism in


Section One: Introduction, Background and

Overview.

1. 1 Introduction

This report presents the background, findings and implications of research undertaken by a project

team from Victoria University for the Co-operative Research Centre for Bushfires Ltd. (Bushfire CRC)

acting on behalf of Victoria’s Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI). Undertaken

from January – September 2014, the aim of the project was to assess the economic value and

vulnerability of the nature-based tourism industry in the Alpine Region with a specific focus on the

township of Harrietville. The project was guided by two main objectives that were to:

• Establish a framework for determining the characteristics, value and vulnerability of nature-based

tourism.

• Define and map (spatially and temporally) characteristics, value and vulnerability of nature-based

tourism for Harrietville and selected communities in the Ovens-Alpine area.

The report is structured in four parts. This section provides the background, context, an overview of

relevant literature, methodology and limitations of the project. Part Two reports on the tourism profile

and economic value of tourism in the Alpine Shire and in Harrietville based on primary and secondary

visitor data that informs an input/output analysis reported in Part Three. Part Four describes the

tourism system operating in Harrietville and provides a ‘vulnerability/resilience’ analysis of the tourism

economy in Harrietville. Part Five identifies the policy and strategic implications of the research and

makes recommendations aimed at resilience building.

1. 2 Background

Like much of Victoria, the North East region of Victoria has been negatively and severely impacted by

bushfires on a number of occasions. The most recent events (2002/03, 2006/07, 2009 and 2013)

caused loss of life, property and livestock as well as destruction of extensive protected areas. One of

the impacts has been disruption of the tourism industry which is a major economic driver in the region

and one that is sympathetic to the extant agricultural, lifestyle and environmental values of the area.

Whilst nature-based tourism typically conjures up images of people in pristine locations (such as

protected areas) and engaging in adventurous activities (such as white-water rafting) for the purposes

of this research, the term is employed to include all tourism activities that rely on a natural setting, as

opposed to an urban setting. As such, given the region’s reliance on wine and food tourism,

sightseeing, alpine skiing in the winter and bushwalking and cycling in the summer, the entire tourism

industry in the region is classed as “nature-based tourism”.

The North East region of Victoria is located within the Federal Division of Indi and includes the

western and northern slopes of the Australian Alps and the major rivers and valleys (King, Ovens,

Kiewa) that flow north and north west from these slopes to the Murray River. The area is generally

formed as a triangle that fans out from the Falls Creek ski fields in the south east to Wangaratta in the

west and Wodonga to the north. The focus of this project is Harrietville which is part of the Alpine

Shire and located on the Great Alpine Road at the base of the Mt Hotham and 25 kilometres from

Bright. Harrietville is a small village with a resident population of 403 (Easterbrook, 2013). While the

township of Harrietville has not itself been burnt, its geographic features, coupled with its reliance on

nature-based tourism, makes it particularly vulnerable to the impacts of bushfires affecting the

surrounding parks and nature-based tourism infrastructure. Figure 1 shows the location of Harrietville

within the context of the Alpine Shire.



2

Figure 1. Harrietville and the Alpine Shire

The impetus for this project emerged in the context of the most recent bushfire, which started on 21

January 2013 and was ignited through a lightning strike at Smoko, a locality around four kilometres

north-east of Harrietville. While the fire was named ‘the Harrietville Fire’, the fire actually travelled

around Harrietville to within 100 meters of Mt Hotham and across the Great Alpine Road. The result

was that 37,000 hectares of Alpine National Park were burnt over a period of 55 days leading to the

tragic death of two firefighters. The fire was also followed by heavy rains, which combined with the

after-effects of the fires, caused considerable flooding and water contamination in the township. The

combined effects of fire and flood also caused mud slides forcing road closures between Harrietville

and Mt Hotham. These events resulted in at least partial road closures to Harrietville for effectively 10

weeks of the first three months of 2013 (Mt Hotham Resort, 2013). Further road closures also took

place over the course of November 2013 for road maintenance works. While no property or lives

within Harrietville were lost, the town suffered a loss of income from visitors or transit tourists for

effectively three months of 2013.



Given that the incidence of bushfire is expected to become increasingly frequent and that the

management of the 2013 fire has been contentious, there have since been a number of government

and community projects and initiatives aimed at strengthening responses to bushfire prevention and

management as well as building community resilience in relation to bushfire. This project is

specifically focused on understanding the impacts of fire on the tourism economy as well as to

understand Harrietville’s vulnerability and resilience as a tourism destination.

1. 3 The economic contribution of tourism

As outlined, a key objective of this project is to assess the impact of fire on the tourism economy in

NE Victoria and in Harrietville. The following section gives an overview of the scale and character of

tourism both in the town and the region in the broader Australian and Victorian context. First,

however, we outline how measurements of the economic contribution of tourism are arrived at given

tourism’s peculiarities as a sector that operates across, rather than within standard industry

classifications. As Dwyer and Spurr (2010) explain, tourism does not exist as a distinct industry or

sector – rather tourism activity is a part of other industry activities such as transport or retail. Tourism

is also distinctive in that it is defined by demand or consumption by tourists rather than supply as is

the case with other industries that are measured by supply, such as mining or manufacturing. As

such, the economic contribution of the sector requires particular measurement techniques. The

primary technique is the construction of Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSA). TSAs extract from the

National Accounts the contribution that tourism makes to each other sector of the economy allowing

measurement of the true contribution of tourism to GDP or Gross State Product (GSP) in the case of

states. This allows comparison with other economic sectors listed in the national accounts.

Calculations of the value of tourism are also inclusive of both direct and indirect contributions. The

indirect value of tourism is greater than direct contributions and has a wide indirect flow on effect to

other industries. Direct contributions made by tourism primarily refer to the immediate effect of

expenditure made by visitors such as sales in the hotel sector. The direct effects include payments for

wages and salaries, net taxes and supplies and services. Indirect effects are normally calculated

through the use of input-output (I-O) modelling to estimate the flow on effects that result from

spending of the tourism industry’s receipts on goods and services from other industries such as food

supply, agriculture and transport for goods. While the value of tourism is measured as a component

GDP, the tourism gross value added (GVA) contribution is considered the most accurate measure of

the economic contribution of the industry. This measure includes the total labour income and capital

revenue received by the industry and the net taxes that government receives from production.

Underlying all measurements of the economic contribution of tourism are estimates of tourism

consumption or ‘spend’ that for Australia are drawn from the conduct of an International Visitor Survey

(IVS) and the National Visitor Survey (NVS). Data for the IVS is gathered by way of an intercept

interview conducted continuously in departure lounges at Australian airports and sea ports (n=40,000

p.a.). Data for the IVS is weighted against Department of Immigration arrival and departure statistics.

The NVS is conducted by a telephone survey with 120,000 Australian residents who are randomly

selected through random digit dialling. Data for the NVS is weighted against Census data to provide

population level statistics. Both the IVS and NVS have been collected continuously for 30 years and

are the key source of national tourism statistics. The two surveys include a wide range of questions in

relation to nature, purpose, logistics and motivations for travel. Importantly, questions include those

on spending on travel.

1. 4 The Project Team

The research was undertaken by a project team from Victoria University, Melbourne, comprised of a

group of researchers selected for their specific expertise from the Tourism and Events Research

Group (TERG) and the Victorian Institute of Strategic Economic Studies (VISES).

Project team members included:

• Professor Terry de Lacy (project leader and expertise in sustainable tourism, natural resource and

protected area management)

• Dr Joanne Pyke (project manager, research design, data collection, community liaison and

reporting)



4

• Dr Min Jiang (tourism adaptation to climate change, vulnerability/resilience assessment)

• Dr Paul Whitelaw (data management, geo-coding, statistical analysis)

• Professor Roger Jones (bushfire risk assessment)

According to expertise, each of the team members has made various contributions to the data

collection and analysis for this project.

1. 5 Approach and Method

In light of the project objectives, this project adopts a mixed method approach in order to gather a mix

of relevant data to assess the profile and value of tourism in Harrietville and broader region, to assess

the impact of fire on the tourism economy and to undertake a vulnerability and resilience analysis of

the tourism economy. This included both the collection and analysis of both secondary and primary

data.

Specific methods included:

1) Analysis of visitor data from the International Visitor Survey (IVS) and the National Visitor

Survey (NVS): In order to assess the economic value of tourism to Harrietville and the region,

Census data was obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and visitor data from

Tourism Research Australia (TRA) for International Visitor Survey (IVS) and National Visitor Survey

(NVS) for the last ten years. The ten years of data received has been disaggregated to estimate

domestic and international visitation and spend. These estimates were used to inform an IO analysis

that is reported in detail in 0.

2) Community Consultation: Each phase of the project was guided and informed by consultation

with the Harrietville community and relevant governance officers working at a regional, shire and local

level. This included presentations at relevant forums including the Alpine Shire Resilience Committee

Meeting and a meeting of the Harrietville Forum, as well as meetings with officers from the Fire

Services Commission (Since reformed as Emergency Management Victoria or EMV) the Alpine Shire

and the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI). These discussions were

conducted in the early phases of the project in order to inform the relevant community, government

and industry networks of the purpose of the project, and to seek advice on the appropriate methods,

timing and logistics of gathering data.

3) Harrietville Visitor Survey: One of the key data collection strategies of the project was the

conduct of a survey of visitors to Harrietville conducted over the three days of the Easter period, from

Friday, 18th April, to Sunday the 20th April 2014. The survey was designed by the project team with

reference to relevant literature. Particular reference was made to the design of the National Visitor

survey (Tourism Research Australia, 2014) and related tourism research undertaken in Victoria

(Sanders, Laing, & Houghton, 2008). The survey included 22 questions that were grouped within

three sections: details about the purpose and motivations for visiting Harrietville; understanding of

bushfire risks and impacts; and, demographic details. The survey was developed as a self-completed

paper-based survey (See Appendix 2 for a copy of the questionnaire). The survey was distributed to,

and collected from, visitors by researchers based at key visitor sites throughout the town. This

included distribution at each of the cafés, pubs and hotels, the caravan park, the Harrietville Trout

Farm, the General Store and throughout the Easter Sunday market. The survey was also supported

and facilitated by tourism operators who allowed the distribution of the survey to guests and visitors

as well as encouraged visitors to complete and return the surveys. A total of 285 usable surveys were

completed and analysed using SPSS. The findings were used to inform a wider

‘vulnerability/resilience’ analysis of Harrietville as a tourism destination (reported in 0) as well as

inform estimates of visitor spend (Reported in 0).

4) In-depth interviews: A total of 25 semi-structured interviews (average 45 minutes in length, mostly

face-to face and two telephone interviews) were conducted using a question outline to guide the

interviews. A copy of the interview questions is provided in Appendix 3. Interviewees were identified to

ensure representation by a cross-section of people connected with the Harrietville tourism system.



These included people engaged in operating private tourism businesses, community members with

an interest in the wider social and economic wellbeing of the Harrietville community, relevant

governance officers at state, regional and local levels and other peak tourism and event management

organisations. The interview data was transcribed and analysed using NVIVO, specialized software

for the analysis of qualitative data. The interview data was used to inform the vulnerability and

resilience analysis reported in 0.

The selection of methods was guided primarily for practical purposes in that specific data was

required to respond to the objectives. For example, it was seen as necessary to gain both a visitor

and tourism operator perspective and thus it was necessary to conduct both a survey and in-depth

interviews with the tourism sector. A further consideration, however, is that multiple complementary

methods (method triangulation) is useful in order to enhance the validity of the results (Phillimore &

Goodson, 2004). Overall, the secondary and primary data were used to inform the analysis relevant to

the project objectives. The following sections of the report elaborate on the use of the data to explore

the value of tourism and vulnerability to fire in Harrietville and the NE region.

1. 6 Report Overview

The intention of this section of the report is to explain the background to the project, the project

objectives, the tourism context in which the project was undertaken and to explain who has conducted

the project and how. The following report is structured to respond to each of the project objectives.

Section Two: This section draws on the visitor survey to describe the visitor characteristics and

motivations and to map tourism activity and values in the area. Further, the section draws on national

tourism and census data collections to estimate visitor numbers and spending in Harrietville.

Section Three: Drawing on the tourism visitation and spend data developed in Section Two, this

section explains the process, assumptions and outcomes of an IO analysis and estimates the impact

of a shock (in this case fire) to the tourism system.

Section Four: This section applies a Destination Sustainability Framework (DSF) and draws on all

data gathered to critically analyse Harrietville’s exposure and resilience to bushfire. In particular, the

section explores the key vulnerability and resilience characteristics of the tourism system.

Section Five: This concluding section summarises the project findings and explores the implications

for building resilience by the Harrietville tourism economy.



6

Section Two: The value and character of

tourism in Harrietville

2. 1 Introduction

As outlined, a key objective of this project is to assess the value of nature-based tourism in NE

Victoria and in Harrietville. The purpose of this section is to draw on both secondary and primary data

sources to estimate this value but also to outline the scale and character of tourism in the area.

Primary data was gathered through the conduct of a Harrietville Visitor Survey described in 0. In

particular, the survey included questions about visitor spending in Harrietville as well as the value

placed on nature-based tourism opportunities in the area. An analysis of multiple years of National

Visitor Survey data (NVS) and International Visitor Survey data (NVS) was done to estimate visitor

numbers and visitor spend.

2. 2 National, state, regional and local tourism value

Nationally, tourism is recognized as a significant growth industry generating around $94 billion in

spending and more than 900,000 jobs (Kookana & Duc Pham, 2013). In the year ending March 2014,

there were 6 million international visitors to Australia and domestic tourists stayed over 300 million

nights away from home (TRA, 2013). Growth from international visitors is forecast to continue,

particularly through visitation from across Asia and especially from China (Tourism Australia, 2011).

At a state government level, tourism contributes 5.8 per cent to the Victorian Gross State Product

(GSP) both directly ($8.78 billion) and indirectly ($19.6 billion). Tourism also accounts for 203,000

jobs or 7 per cent of employment in Victoria. Victoria is not as reliant on tourism as other states such

as Tasmania (with 9.8% of GSP) or the Northern Territory (9.1%) reflecting a more diversified

economy2. At the same time, the significance of tourism as an economic driver is becoming

increasingly recognized particularly in the context of the decline of the automotive manufacturing

industry and other job losses that have a particular impact in Victoria’s regional areas. Government

strategic planning is focused on tourism growth and key strategies include attracting international

growth markets from Asia, increasing the benefits of major and business events, and making

investment in tourism infrastructure. A key strategy is to ensure that the benefits of tourism are spread

across Victoria’s regions and to actively support regional tourism growth (Tourism Australia, 2011).

Given the localised nature of tourism, much of the emphasis of tourism planning is focused at a

regional level. Australia has 84 tourism regions with 11 regions across Victoria. The Victorian NE

region is known as the ‘High Country’ encompasses six Local Government Areas (LGAs)3 as well as

representation by three Resort management boards including Mt Buller, Falls Creek and Mt Hotham.

The region extends roughly in a triangle including the towns of Alexandra and Eildon at its most

southern points, across Victoria’s main snow fields of Mt Bulla, Hotham and Falls Creek as far as

Corryong in the NE, along the Victorian side of the Murray River including Wodonga and Rutherglen.

The region also includes key ‘food and wine’ towns and localities such as Beechworth,

Yackandandah, Milawa, and Myrtleford amongst others that are distinctive for their high-quality food

and wine experiences (TRA, 2011, p. 18).

Tourism marketing and promotion builds on the region’s natural assets and rests on five key product

strengths or ‘pillars’ (Tourism North East, 2013). These include:

1. 1. Snow - Alpine winter experiences;

2. 2. Cycling – road, trail and mountain biking;

3. 3. Food, wine and beer;

2 All Victorian economic estimates are taken from data gathered and analysed by Tourism Research Australia (TRA) and published by Tourism

Victoria available at http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/research/economic-significance.html.

3 LGAs include: Alpine Shire; Benalla Rural City; Indigo Shire; Mansfield Shire; Rural City of Wangaratta; and, Towong Shire.

http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/research/economic-significance.html



4. 4. Nature based experiences –alpine and non-alpine walking, horse riding, water sport, and

fishing; and

5. 5. Cultural Heritage.

Harrietville lies within the Alpine Shire which includes a number of the key towns and attractions

within the Shire boundaries. While there are parts of the NE Region that have a particular focus on a

particular type of tourism attraction, all five pillars are central to the tourism economy in the Alpine

Shire. This is due to the Shire including large tracts of national and state parks, iconic touring routes,

sites of significant natural and cultural history as well as famous wineries and a number of towns

increasingly famous for food, wine and beer experiences such as Milawa, Myrtleford and Bright.

Importantly, both Mt Beauty and Harrietville are gateways to Victoria’s largest ski resorts of Falls

Creek and Mt Hotham.

Visitor research undertaken by the Alpine Shire on Bright and surrounds (Bright, Myrtleford, Mt

Beauty and Harrietville), show that visitation to the area is distinctive in a number of ways. These

include visitors who are predominantly domestic visitors primarily from Melbourne (43%), other parts

of Victoria (22%), New South Wales (21%) and other states. Visitors come for sightseeing, eating out

and shopping. The vast majority (91%) have been to the region before and know about the area

through previous experience or by word of mouth. The primary group of visitors is families with the

largest number of visitors being in the 25-44-year-old age group. The majority of summer visitors stay

in caravan parks/camping grounds and the average length of stay was 5 nights (Alpine Shire Council,

2013).

Like the broader region, visitors to the Alpine Shire are dominated by two particular market segments.

These include ‘Lifestyle Leaders’ (40% of all visitors) who are identified as being predominantly

couples, who are either pre-children or with older more independent children. This group is educated,

independent, well researched and are frequent travellers. They are opinion leaders and seek a range

of experiences. The second group is ‘habitual’ (28% of visitors). This group are family focused, are

influenced by family and friends, and seek comfort and familiarity. They commonly stay in camping

grounds or holiday houses and travel predominantly in school holidays or long weekends. This group

is budget conscious and difficult to influence from a marketing perspective (North East Victoria

Tourism Board, 2012, p. 13).

As part of the tourism landscape within the Shire and the region, Harrietville is widely regarded with

affection and occupies its own unique position. It is very picturesque, located on the Ovens River and

despite being very small (population 403), offers access to a number of attractions including

bushwalking trails, river fishing, and four-wheel driving whilst offering a range of accommodation

options, restaurants, pubs and cafes within the township. Importantly, it is also a base for skiers at Mt

Hotham and Dinner Plain and a key milestone on iconic touring routes. As reported later in the

findings, according to the visitors’ survey conducted in Harrietville, it is the relaxing and beautiful

environment that is attractive to many visitors. As such, visitors to Harrietville comprise a large

proportion of ‘habituals’ who come and stay in Harrietville for an annual holiday as well as being a

stop-over for ‘lifestyle leaders’ who take part in a wide range of leisure activities such as bush-

walking, four-wheel driving, cycling amongst others. The town’s economy is highly reliant on tourism

with most of the town’s population, either directly or indirectly, receiving income either through

business operations or employment in the accommodation, retail or food and beverage industries.

In summary, Harrietville is a special place for visitors and the broader community and while it is a

small hamlet, the town occupies a niche position within the local and regional tourism economy.

2. 3 The Harrietville Visitor Survey

This section reports on the results and implications of the Harrietville visitor survey conducted over

the Easter weekend 2014 in and round Harrietville. As described earlier, the purpose of the survey

was to identify visitor characteristics, motivations for visitation, perceptions of bushfire risk, and money

spent on visiting Harrietville. The intention was that the data would be used to inform the key

objectives of the project and the findings are drawn upon as evidence to identify the economic value

and vulnerability of nature-based tourism in Harrietville and in the region. This section reports more

specifically on the survey results.



8

Respondent Profile

A total of 285 valid survey responses were returned and Table 1 below show the key characteristics

of respondents in relation to gender, age, family status, education and income.

Table 1. Harrietville visitor survey responses

Total Respondents (n=285)

Gender (n = 263)

Male 43.3%

Female 56.7%

Age (n = 240)

20 and younger 3.8%

21 to 30 13.3%

31 to 40 20.4%

41 to 50 25.4%

51 to 60 20.8%

61 to 70 14.2%

71 and older 2.1%

Country of birth (n = 261)

Australia 85.4%

United Kingdom 5.4%

New Zealand 1.1%

Other countries 8.1%

States currently living (n = 258)

NSW 12.8%

ACT 1.6%

VIC 82.9%

QLD 0.8%

SA 1.6%

Other 0.4%

Household (n = 261)

Single person 6.9%

Couple with no children or children who have left

home

34.9%

Couple with children 44.8%

Single parent with children 3.4%

Extended family 1.1%

Couple or group household of independent adults 7.7%

Other 1.1%

Education level (n = 269)

Post-graduate degree 26.8%



University degree 32.3%

Non-university trade or technical qualification 17.1%

Secondary school 22.7%

Primary school 1.1%

Annual Income (n = 234)

Less than $50,000 per year 26.9%

Between $50,001 - $100,000 38.0%

Between $100,001 - $150,000 18.8%

Between $151,000 - $200,000 8.1%

More than $200,000 8.1%

As shown above, the survey was completed by more women (57%) than men (43%). The average

age was 44 years; the oldest respondent was 78 years and the youngest 18 years. Almost 40 per

cent were over 50 years of age with 7 per cent under 25 years.

Slightly more than 80 per cent of respondents were in a domestic relationship, either with children at

home (45%) or with children who had left the family home (35%). Almost seven per cent of

respondents were single.

Nearly 60 per cent of respondents had attended university, 18 per cent completed some form of

apprenticeship or vocational education and 23 per cent completed no more than secondary school.

Nearly 27 per cent of respondents had a post graduate degree. More than a third of respondents

(35%) earned over $100k per annum with fewer than 27 per cent with an income of less than $50k

per annum. Just over eight per cent of respondents earned in excess of $220k per annum.

Over 85 per cent of respondents were born in Australia with a further eight per cent born in the

Anglosphere and two per cent were born in Western Europe. Slightly more than two per cent were

from Asia. Just over 15 per cent of respondents speak a language other than English at home; the

most common being Chinese, German, Italian and Spanish.

More than 83 per cent of respondents were from Victoria with just on ten per cent from New South

Wales. More than half of the respondents (55%) were from metropolitan Melbourne. Figure 2 shows

the distribution of visitors by postcode of residence. The darker the colour of the markers represented

in the map indicates the greater the number of nights stayed on the trip. The larger the marker, the

more visits over time.



10

Figure 2. Residential Distribution of Victorian Visitors by Postcode

Eastern Victoria Metropolitan Melbourne

Overall, these results present a picture of a cohort that comprises well educated, comfortable, middle

class citizens largely from metropolitan Melbourne. Importantly, despite these high levels of education

and comfort, it is a group profile that is consistent with the visitor research undertaken in the wider

region and reported above. Such results lend support to the validity of our data.

2. 3. 1 Visitation Behaviour

Only two per cent of respondents travelled alone. More than 55 per cent travelled in small groups

whilst nearly 27 per cent travelled in large groups with nearly 16 per cent travelling as couples. The

average group size was eight people.

One respondent had been visiting since 1946 whilst 75 were visiting for the first time. The “average

year of first visit” was 1998 with nearly 42 per cent having visited prior to 1999. Of those that have

visited previously, 75 per cent had visited three or more times, with 44 per cent having visited six or

more times. Table 2.2 below shows that the large majority of respondents were repeat visitors to

Harrietville with 67 per cent saying that they had visited Harrietville at least twice previously. Many

were frequent visitors with almost one third (32.4%) said that they had visited five or more times

previously. This visitation often had a long history with almost half (46%) saying that they first visited

Harrietville prior to 2000 with only 20 per cent saying that their first visit was after 2011. Again, this

finding resonates with regional tourism planning data that classifies the major visitor types as being

‘habitual’.



Table 2. Frequency of visit and the year of first visit

Frequency of visits % (n=285) year of first visit % (n=186)

This is my first visit 26.4

once 6.3 1980 and before 14.0

twice 11.6 1981-1990 15.6

three times 9.5 1991-2000 16.1

four times 3.9 2001-2010 34.4

five times 9.9 2011 and after 19.9

more than five times 32.4 100.0

Total 100.0

Nearly 50 per cent of respondents were making a day trip to Harrietville. Of this group, nearly 53 per

cent were staying in Bright, the rest were staying elsewhere in the North East with about 17 per cent

staying in the “alpine areas above the snow line” (Mt. Hotham and Dinner Plain) and the balance

staying in the towns throughout the valleys, especially Porepunkah.

Almost 30 per cent of respondents were staying for four to seven nights and about 16 per cent were

staying for two to three nights. Amongst those staying overnight, the average length of stay was four

nights. The largest group of visitors were also camping, either at the caravan park (37%) or in the

bush (8%). A similar proportion was staying in hotel/motel accommodation (36%) or in a rented

holiday house (15%). Almost one quarter (24%) were staying in a holiday house that they owned or

belonged to friends or family.

Table 3. Length of Stay and type of Accommodation in Harrietville

Staying in Harrietville (nights) % (n=143) Type of accommodation % (n=149)

*

1 4.2 Camping in the bush 8.1

2 7.7 In Camping Ground / caravan park 36.9

3 23.8 Bed & breakfast 1.3

4 30.1 Hotel/motel /cabin/unit/lodge accommodation 35.6

5 16.1 In a rented holiday house 15.4

6 7.7 In my own/friends/family holiday house 24.2

7 5.6 Other (please describe) 4.7

8 to 10 2.8

11 to 21 2.1

Total 100.0

*Includes respondents reporting that they stayed one or more nights in Harrietville - 149 respondents or 53.6% of

278.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents spent less than $400 on their holiday with 15 per cent spending

more than $1,000. However, amongst the day trippers, nearly 50 per cent spent less than $200 whilst

amongst the overnight visitors, just over 46% spent between $400 and $1,000. These results suggest

that the visitor population is relatively mature, experienced and familiar with both Harrietville and the

North East.



12

Motivations for Visiting Harrietville

The respondents were invited to identify a range of reasons for visiting Harrietville. Table 4 below

(2.5) displays the reasons and the number of respondents who nominated each reason (multiple

nominations were permitted).

Table 4. Reasons for Visiting Harrietville

Reason for visiting Harrietville Number of

responses

Percentage of

total responses

Percentage of total

respondents

(n=285)

Family / friends holiday - habitual 15 4.0 5.3

Food / meal 23 6.2 8.1

Referred by others / day trip 14 3.8 4.9

Stop while passing through 26 7.0 9.1

Visit friends / family 31 8.3 10.9

Accommodation available / Bright /elsewhere 38 10.2 13.3

Friends / family have a holiday house 10 2.7 3.5

Activity - motor cycling, cycling, 4WD, walking 66 17.7 23.2

Beauty / relaxation bush 83 22.3 29.1

Event - market, duck race4 39 10.5 13.7

Easter break / holiday 18 4.8 6.3

Other 9 2.4 3.2

TOTAL 372 100.0 131.5

However, and as might be expected, there were distinct differences in the motivations of first-time

visitors with more frequent visitors are different as shown below. For respondents that have visited

Harrietville more than five times, the main reason for visiting is to enjoy the beauty and relaxing

environment or to visit family or friend as a reunion or regular holiday event. This group also consider

visiting to be a habit or ‘something we do every year’ (12.6%). In contrast, first time visitors to

Harrietville do so because they are in transit to areas, such as, Mt Hotham or Dinner Plain, or to do

activities in Harrietville such as cycling, bushwalking or picnicking. Some of them come on the

recommendation of others (12.3%) as described in

Table 5 below.

4 An annual fund-raising event run by the Harrietville Primary School.



Table 5. Comparison of visitation motivations for first time visitors and ‘habituals’

This is my first visit (n=73) Visitors - more than five times (n=87)

Stopped while passing through 15.1% Beauty / relaxation / bush 28.7%

Activity - motor cycling, cycling,

4WD, walking

13.7% Visit friends / family 16.1%

Referred by others / day trip 12.3% Event - market, duck race 12.6%

Accommodation available/non-

available in Bright over Easter.

12.3% Family / friends holiday - habitual 11.5%

Beauty / relaxation / bush 9.6% Activity - motor cycling, cycling, 4WD, walking 10.3%

Event - market, duck race 9.6% Stop while passing through 5.7%

Food / meal 6.8% Friends / family have a holiday house 4.6%

Visit friends / family 5.5% Accommodation available / bright /elsewhere 3.4%

Other 15.1% Other 6.9%

The 285 respondents offered 372 reasons for visiting, equal to 1.315 reasons per respondent. The

“natural beauty and the bush setting, and the relaxation attached to that” was the most popular reason

with a total of 83 nominations. Next were activities such as motor cycling, cycling and FWD along with

bush walking with 66 nominations. However, it is worth noting that friends, family and similar

connections were treated differently, but when combined, received a total of 56 nominations making it

the third most popular reason. These results highlight the dominance of the natural setting (expressed

in terms of the bush, natural setting and so on), and the efforts of Harrietville to engage with the

tourism industry (market, duck races and so on).

Axiomatically, these results confirm the perceived value of Harrietville and the North East to the

respondents. They visit for several reasons, but such reasons are endemic, most notably

opportunities to undertake both passive and active recreation in the wilderness, typically in groups,

with family and friends.

The respondents were also asked to identify both outdoor and other activities undertaken whilst

visiting Harrietville, as presented in the two tables below.



14

Table 6. Outdoor activities undertaken when visiting Harrietville

“Outdoor” activities

undertaken when

visiting Harrietville

Number of

responses

Percentage of total

responses

Percentage of total

respondents (n=285)

Bushwalking 164 21.1 57.5

Fishing 72 9.3 25.3

Swimming 44 5.7 15.4

Canoeing 12 1.5 4.2

Other water activities 14 1.8 4.9

Skiing/snowboarding/sno

w activities

26 3.4 9.1

Fossicking for gold or

other minerals

18 2.3 6.3

Four Wheel driving 41 5.3 14.4

Cycling on roads or

bicycle paths

82 10.6 28.8

Mountain bike riding 25 3.2 8.8

Picnicking 94 12.1 33.0

Driving tours 93 12.0 32.6

Horse-riding 13 1.7 4.6

Motor-bike touring (on

road)

10 1.3 3.5

Trail-bike riding (off road) 18 2.3 6.3

Fitness activities e.g.

Running, ski-training

50 6.4 17.5

TOTAL 776 100.0 272.3



Table 7. ‘Other’ activities undertaken when visiting Harrietville

“Other” activities undertaken

when visiting Harrietville

Number of

responses

Percentage of

total responses

Percentage of total

respondents (n=285)

Going on organised tours/activities 8 1.1 2.8

Eating out in restaurants/cafe 201 26.8 70.5

Visiting friends/relatives 58 7.7 20.4

The Trout Farm 80 10.7 28.1

The Harrietville Museum 29 3.9 10.2

Granny’s pantry 39 5.2 13.7

The Dredge Hole 77 10.3 27.0

Food tasting 54 7.2 18.9

Markets or other events 137 18.2 48.1

Other 68 9.1 23.9

TOTAL 751 100.0 263.5

It is important to note the symbiotic relationship between the natural setting, wherein visitors

participate in both active and passive recreation (as evidenced in Table 6), and the active participation

in tourism in and around Harrietville (as evidenced in



16

Table 7). These results suggest a reasonably dynamic and entrepreneurial tourism sector in

Harrietville that is seeking to capitalize on the traffic generated by, and “value add” to, the nature-

based recreation undertaken in the region.

The dynamic of the tourism sector and the dispersal of visitor activity in and around Harrietville was

measured by inviting respondents to identify three locations on a grid map and nominate three

activities undertaken at each of those three locations. The first table below (Table 8) identifies all

locations nominated by the respondents. The second table (

Table 9) identifies the activities undertaken by respondents who visited the top five locations in and

around Harrietville.

Table 8. Places visited in and around Harrietville

Places visited in and around Harrietville

(map grid references)

Number of

responses

Percentage of

total responses

Percentage of total

respondents (n=285)

F1: Along Feathertop Track, well east of township 2 0.4 0.7

G1: Near Blueberry Farm 9 1.9 3.2

H1: Near Tangari Lodge 8 1.7 2.8

J1: Near Tronoh Dredge 33 7.1 11.6

K1: Along Ovens River East & Bon Accord Track 7 1.5 2.5

A2: Near Trout Farm 34 7.3 11.9

C2: Near Hit or Miss Creek 1 0.2 0.4

F2: Near End of Newmans Lane 1 0.2 0.4



G2: Along Ovens River East, Back of Pioneer Park* 91 19.7 31.9

H2: Along Feathertop Track & Bon Accord Track* 58 12.5 20.4

J2: Along Bon Accord Track, south east of township 8 1.7 2.8

K2: Along Ovens River East tributaries, south of

township

2 0.4 0.7

C3: Along Cemetery Lane, north west of township 2 0.4 0.7

D3: Along Overs River, behind Lavender Hue B&B 18 3.9 6.3

G3: Near confluence of Ovens East and West* 22 4.8 7.7

H3: Near Harrietville Camping Ground* 138 29.8 48.4

J3: Near Harrietville Cricket Club Ground 13 2.8 4.6

K3: Between Old Coach Road and Great Alpine

Road

8 1.7 2.8

E4: Along tributary creek, well behind Able Mgt.

Group.

2 0.4 0.7

J4: Along Ovens River West Branch, near Mill Road 1 0.2 0.4

K4: Along Ovens River West Branch, near Lyrebird

Gully

5 1.1 1.8

TOTAL 463 100.0 162.5

* These areas are effectively within the township

Table 9. Locations visited, and activities undertaken

Locations visited, and activities undertaken

(not just at those locations)

A2

Near

Trout

Farm

J1

Near

Tronoh

Dredge

H2*

Near

Tangari

Lodge

G2*

Near

Pioneer

Park

H3*

Near

Camping

Ground

Total

Bushwalking 4 4 7 8 12 35

Fishing 9 4 4 3 5 25

Swimming 0 10 3 5 5 23

Cycling on roads or bicycle paths 2 3 3 7 12 27

Eating out in restaurants/cafe 20 18 46 69 114 267

The Trout Farm 23 1 4 6 11 45

The Dredge Hole 0 20 1 10 18 49

Special events e.g. Markets or other events 3 2 15 43 25 88



18

Camping, caravan park, accommodation 7 14 15 32 61 129

Town walking, walking / running on walking track

or riverside

7 19 27 25 50 128

Relaxing / park 4 5 16 20 20 65

Shopping for groceries, general stores 2 4 17 14 14 51

TOTAL 81 104 158 242 347 932

These results clearly indicate that the township is the main focus of tourism in the area and that within

the township, the provision of tourism and hospitality services is the dominant activity. This is not

unusual; however, it does highlight the symbiotic relationship between the natural setting of the

hinterland (which does not in and of itself generate revenue) and the provision of visitor services in

the township (which does generate revenue). Whilst the bush can survive without the tourists or the

township, visitation to the bush is enriched by using the tourism services in Harrietville and, in turn,

Harrietville is clearly dependent on the quality of the “bush experience” to attract visitors to the region

in the first instance.

2. 3. 2 Visitor fire awareness, experience and preparedness

The third section of the survey was focussed on visitor perceptions of fire risk in Harrietville and

questions were focussed on fire awareness, preparedness and impacts on visitation.

Awareness

Nearly 78 per cent of respondents were aware prior to this visit that the Harrietville area had been

affected by fire in recent years. The 22 per cent of respondents who were not aware were significantly

different (sig=0.05) to those who were aware, in several areas as evidenced in Table 10.

Table 10. Visitor bushfire awareness

Aspect

Aware of bushfire

Percentage

(n=222)

Not aware

Percentage

(n=63)

Total Sample 77.9 22.1

Repeat Visitor 86.3 13.7

First time visitor 52.3 47.7

Day Tripper 71.4 28.6

Overnight Visitor 83.8 16.2

ACT Residents 58.3 41.7

NSW Residents 60.0 40.0

Queensland Residents 50.0 50.0

SA Residents 100.0 0.0



Victorian Residents 80.8 19.2

Over 50 83.0 17.0

35 to 49 years 79.1 20.9

25 to 34 years 60.5 39.5

Up to 24 years 68.8 31.2

The results are relatively unambiguous: those with a longer and more engaged history with the area

are much more aware of the recent fires. In particular, older, overnight, repeat, Melbourne based

visitors have very high levels of awareness – well past the 80 per cent mark. However, it could be

questioned why there remains 15 per cent of this cohort that is not aware of the bushfires?

Concern about fires

A further question addressed the level of concern about bushfire risk during summer. Nearly 60 per

cent of respondents were concerned about the impact of bushfires in the summer. However, not

surprisingly, there were some significant differences amongst those aware of previous bushfires; 64

per cent were concerned or very concerned compared to 43 per cent of those not aware. In contrast,

amongst those not aware, 44 per cent were neither concerned nor unconcerned compared to 22 per

cent amongst those who were aware of previous bushfires. This suggests that a pattern of “blithe

ignorance” appears to be emerging with those not aware of previous bushfires who seem to not

appreciate the threat posed by future bushfires.

Information Sources

Respondents were invited to identify the various information sources from which they learn about

bushfires. Table 11 highlights the general media as the dominant source of information.

Table 11. Information sources about bushfire

Information sources to learn about bushfires

(multiple responses)

Number of

responses

Percentage of total

responses

Percentage of total

respondents (n=285)

General media 172 53.4 60.4

The visitor centre or other tourism information

services

3 0.9 1.1

Friends and family 81 25.2 28.4

The CFA website and other on-line information 34 10.6 11.9

Direct experience 22 6.8 7.7

Other (please describe) 10 3.1 3.5

TOTAL 322 100.0 113.0

The high level of awareness of, and perhaps thus reliance on, the general media, suggests that

authorities ought to have well developed media strategies to ensure that visitors are kept away during

the dangerous period, but are then brought back once the danger has passed in order to reinvigorate

the tourism industry.



20

Taking Action

Of those planning to visit Harrietville in the summer, nearly 17 per cent were planning to make

preparations to deal with the threat. Just on 13 per cent of respondents were aware of previous

bushfires AND were making fire contingency plans for their summer visit. Nearly half (48.5%) were

both not aware of previous bushfires and not intending to make contingency plans.

Table 12. Awareness and actions of those planning to visit Harrietville

Awareness and actions of

those planning to visit

Harrietville in the summer

Aware of Information about

bushfires (n=115)

Percentage of Total

NOT aware of information

about bushfires (n=126)

Percentage of Total

TOTAL

(n=241)

Will make plans (n=40) 12.9 3.7 16.6

Will NOT make plans (n=201) 34.9 48.5 83.4

TOTAL (n=241) 47.7 52.3 100.0

Of those who were aware, and make contingency plans, the plan for nearly 75 per cent of this group

was to not visit Harrietville or the North East, while 25 per cent planned to visit an alternate

destination in the North East. Only three respondents in the entire study indicated that, in future fire

events, they would persist and visit Harrietville – due mainly to their reliance on informal, local

knowledge. These results have significant implications for the wider region. They suggest that fire

impact is not restricted to the immediate fire affected areas. With 75 per cent altering their plans due

to bushfires, not just the immediate area of the fire, but also the wider region, is negatively impacted

by fire.

2. 3. 3 Summary of survey findings

The visitor survey findings reveal key characteristics, motivations, activities and awareness and

preparedness for fire. Overall, these results present a picture of a cohort that is well educated,

comfortable, middle class citizens largely from metropolitan Melbourne. These results also suggest

that the visitor population is relatively mature, experienced and familiar with both Harrietville and the

North East. They appear to make a strong contribution to the tourism economy in the region.

Axiomatically, these results confirm the perceived value of Harrietville and the North East to the

respondents.

They visit for several reasons, but such reasons are endemic, most notably opportunities to undertake

both passive and active recreation in the wilderness, typically in groups, with family and friends.

Based on the activities undertaken by visitors and visitor ‘spend’, there is a dynamic and

entrepreneurial tourism sector in Harrietville that capitalises on visitor traffic in ways that ‘value add’ to

the nature-based recreation undertaken in the region.




actually safe to do so. There are also a small but significant proportion of regular visitors who are not

aware of fire risk potentially indicating the need for wider communication about fire and its related

risks. The purpose of this section has been to report on the overall findings from the visitor survey.

The survey data is also used to inform a vulnerability and resilience assessment of the area. The

findings of this analysis are reported in 0.



2. 4 Mapping tourism value

2. 4. 1 Estimating visitor numbers and spend in smaller rural destinations

As Dwyer and Spurr (2010) explain, tourism does not exist as a distinct industry or sector – rather

tourism activity is a part of other industry activities such as transport or retail. Tourism is also

distinctive in that it is defined by demand or consumption by tourists rather than supply as is the case

with other industries that are measured by supply, such as mining or manufacturing.

Estimates of tourism value are therefore calculated through tourism consumption or ‘spend’. This is

done through an estimation of the annual number of tourists visiting a destination as well as an

estimation of the average spend of each visitor in that destination.

In Australia, the annual visitation is calculated by the number of international travellers arriving at

ports by summing all ‘visitor arrival cards’ excluding returning Australians. For state, regional and local

destinations however, international and domestic (Australian) travellers who cross the ‘borders’ into a

state, region or local area are not directly counted. Hence, indirect methods are necessary. Many

methods are used to estimate visitor numbers including accommodation occupancy, event

attendance, numbers and related surveys at visitor centres, road counts and specific visitor surveys.

For example, the visitor survey over one holiday weekend we report on above for Harrietville can

assist in gaining an indication of average spend per visitor but of course is no help on visitor numbers.

In Australia, a national tourism data collection agency (presently Tourism Research Australia) has

undertaken (or coordinated) and analysed an International Visitor Survey (IVS) and the National

Visitor Survey (NVS) for more than 30 years. Data for the IVS is gathered by way of an intercept

interview conducted continuously in departure lounges at Australian airports and sea ports (n=40,000

p.a.). The NVS is conducted by a telephone survey with 120,000 Australian residents who are

randomly selected through random digit dialling. Both surveys include a wide range of questions in

relation to nature, purpose, logistics and motivations for travel. Importantly, questions include where

they visited and what they spent on travel.

The IVS, combined with the international visitor arrivals calculated from visitor arrival cards, can thus

be used to estimate the total spend by international visitors in Australia as a whole. The IVS combined

with the NVS can be used to estimate accurately visitor numbers and visitor spend for states as well

as for cities and regions (e.g. Melbourne, the Gold Coast) with large visitor numbers as the sample

sizes are large for such destinations. However, for regions with small visitor numbers or local areas



22

and town such as Harrietville such destination’s sample sizes are often too small to estimate reliable

visitor numbers and related activities and spend. To address this challenge, a data validation exercise

was undertaken.

This exercise involves reviewing the 10 years of data for the local place areas in both the IVS and

NVS to obtain larger statistically significant samples and correlating that data with the ABS Census for

2001, 2006 and 2011. Within the Census there are measures which can act as reasonable proxies for

elements of tourism behaviour. These proxies take two forms: the behaviour of the normal household

occupant and, the behaviour of a visitor to the household. In both instances’ assessments are made

as to the nature of the hosting: hosting guests from the neighbourhood, region, state or interstate. The

assessment also includes the nature of the visiting; those visiting from the neighbourhood, in the

region, elsewhere in the state or interstate. In essence this incorporation of the three major datasets

(IVS, NVS and Census) greatly enhances the quality of the output because it aligns sample-based

data (IVS and NVS) with census level data.

2. 4. 2 Visitation and Expenditure in Harrietville

The Harrietville visitor survey suggests domestic visitors spend on average $184 per day. But this is a

select sample over one high impact, high traffic, high value long weekend. To get an estimate of

annual spend of tourists (income from tourism) in Harrietville an estimate of annual visitation and

confirmation of the survey’s estimate on average spend is needed.

To do this, and as described in 2. 4. 1 above, we use data gathered by the TRA that estimates the

visitor numbers and visitor spend by both domestic and international tourists. In order to estimate

spending in Harrietville, ten years of NVS and IVS data has been disaggregated to estimate domestic

and international visitation and spend. Table 13 on the following page shows estimates of visitation

numbers and expenditure in Harrietville for 2013.

Table 13. Visitation and Expenditure into Harrietville (2009-2013: 5-year period) IVS and NVS

Domestic Overnight

Total number of overnight visitors: 157,000

Total visitor nights: 483,000

Average number of nights: 3.07

Average spend per person per day: $134.74

2013 visitor nights: 28,000

Domestic Day Trip

Total number of day trippers: 95,000



Average spend per person per day: $127.51 (62% less than $100)

Average spend per person per day when outliers removed: $76.59

2013-day trippers: 27,000

International

Total number of overnight visitors: 2,734

Total visitor nights: 6,029

Average number of nights: 2.20

Average spend per person per day: $81.02

2013 visitor nights: 3,008

Total Spend 2013

Visitation: 60,008 visitor days/nights

(28,000 X $134.74) + (27,000 X $76.59) + (3,008 X $81.02) =>

3,772,720 + 2,067,930 + 243,708 = $6,284,358

Average spend per person per day/night = $104.72

The 285 respondents to the Harrietville visitor survey of Australian residents indicate spending of

$184 per person per day. The visitors surveyed in this study are fairly typical of those visiting the

general north east, although they are better educated with higher incomes that normal. Hence it is

reasonable to suggest the $134.74 per day average spend for domestic overnight visitors estimated

from the NVS data is reasonable and gives credibility to the total annual tourism spend estimate in

Harrietville of approximately six million dollars.

2. 4. 3 Distribution of the tourists, their activities and spend

One of the key intentions of the Harrietville visitor survey was to generate data that enabled the

mapping of the characteristics and value of tourism activities and associated expenditure in order to

assess the vulnerability of nature-based tourism to fire and its associated impacts.

As indicated in 2. 4. 2, the direct value of tourism in the Harrietville area is worth approximately

$6.28m. It is not immediately feasible to accurately distribute this across the various precincts of

Harrietville. However, using “hot spot” analysis, we can map tourist traffic through the precincts in

terms of three key variables; number of nights spent in Harrietville, number of others in the travel

party and amount spent on the holiday.

These metrics were calculated for respondents who identified their top three places to visit. The size

of the markers in the following maps identify the relative distribution of number of nights spent in the

area, the number of visitors and the share of the $6m spent in Harrietville and thus paint a clear

picture of tourism precincts in the area. As a preface, however, we show a street map of Harrietville

village to give context to the following maps.



24

Figure 3. Harrietville Street Map

Figure 4. Visitor Nights

In the first instance, those places that generate the most nights are the immediate village and the campground where commercial accommodation and tourism services are concentrated.

The trout farm in the north is also a major tourist attraction driving overnight visitation in the area.

There is some scattered visitation beyond the immediate precincts of the township, but it is highly dispersed in comparison to the concentration in the township.



Figure 5. Visitor Party Size

Given the distribution of tourism infrastructure, it is not surprising that again, the township with the campground and commercial accommodation is the most densely visited precinct.

Similarly, the Trout Farm in the north presents as a major tourist attraction that attracts groups of above average size.

Figure 6. Visitor Spend

Again, the commercial precinct in the township is a key destination for tourist dollars. And, consistent with tourist traffic in the area, the Trout Farm also enjoys strong patronage.



26

Figure 7. Visitor Nights v Spend

Figure 7 combines the relative number of nights and the magnitude of visitor spend which is shown by darkness.

By bringing these two key metrics the four dark spots are high volume traffic areas in terms of both spend and visitor nights. Essentially, they show the camping ground, the two main hotels and the trout farm as the key points where visitors spend money.

In essence, the township is the central point of the commercial elements of tourism behaviour. Earlier tables highlight that the hinterland enjoys relatively strong visitation. However, the tourism industry which is characterised by visitors spending time and money is clearly located within the township and the Trout Farm.

2. 5 Conclusions

The visitor survey findings reveal key characteristics, motivations, activities and awareness and

preparedness for fire. Overall, these results confirm the perceived value of Harrietville and the North

East to the respondents. They visit for several reasons, but such reasons are endemic, most notably

opportunities to undertake both passive and active recreation in the wilderness, typically in groups,

with family and friends. Based on the activities undertaken by visitors and visitor ‘spend’, there is a

dynamic and entrepreneurial tourism sector in Harrietville that capitalises on visitor traffic in ways that

‘value add’ to the nature-based recreation undertaken in the region. The visitor survey indicates that

visitors spend approximately $184 per day and the national data analysis indicates all tourists spend

on average $104.72 per day. Based on visitor numbers estimated by TRA data and using the lower

spend estimate the value of tourism in 2013 was estimated to be approximately $6.3 million.




actually safe to do so. There are also a small but significant proportion of regular visitors who are not

aware of fire risk potentially indicating the need for wider communication about fire and its related

risks.

The following section further draws on this estimate to inform an IO analysis to estimate the likely

impacts of fire on the tourism economy in Harrietville and in the Alpine Shire.



Section Three: Estimating the economic

impacts of a bushfire on the Victorian Alpine

Region

3. 1 Introduction

Having estimated tourism spending in the Harrietville area, this section uses input-output analysis to

identify the impact of fire on the economy in Harrietville and in the Alpine region. The input-output

framework is a technique that has been used to estimate the impacts of new projects, disasters, or

policy changes on a region. The input-output methodology is useful as it not only incorporates the

direct effects of a policy change, but also the indirect impacts through linkages across industries. This

is all done within an established economic framework known as multiplier analysis. 5

This project uses the technical coefficients (to be defined later) from an existing input-output table of

the Alpine region provided by Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI). This

5 Key terms and acronyms applied are defined on p. vi



28

provides a structured representation of the economic activities of the Alpine region. This table

indicates the linkages between sectors and indicates the payments to inputs and contributions to the

Alpine’s regional gross regional income. Further, employment data is included so as to evaluate the

impact of the shock upon employment.

The total effect from a bushfire to the Alpine region can be broken into two parts; a direct effect which

measures the initial impact from the bushfire on economic activity and employment, and the flow on

effects arising from the accumulation of lost purchases after the initial impact. Therefore, the event’s

impact on spending and employment can be seen as being larger than the effect at the time of

occurrence.

3. 2 Basic results and assumptions

3. 2. 1 Structure

This section provides the results and assumptions to obtain those results. The initial impact of a

bushfire is expected to significantly reduce final demand on four sectors of the Alpine economy:

Forestry and logging (Forestry), Retail trade (Retail), Accommodation (Accom), and food and

beverage services (Food/Bev). The economic structure of those sectors is displayed in Table 14, for

the year 2011/12. These sectors represent about a quarter of the Alpine region’s total output. Further,

much of the production from these sectors is exported out of the region (32 % of all Alpine exports)

where exports account for 27 per cent of total Alpine production (output). These four sectors comprise

of just less than 1,500 of the 4,950 jobs in the region, equating to an employment level of 1,313 full

time jobs.



Table 14. Model structure of various industries for year 2011/2012

Total

Alpine

production

Alpine

consumption Tourism

Other

exports

Tourism

per output

(%)

Total Jobs Employment

(FTE)

Forestry 89.1 24.1 0.0 65.0 0.0% 119 135

Retail 47.7 26.1 21.6 0.0 45.3% 598 445

Accom 60.4 2.7 42.8 14.9 70.8% 380 366

FoodBev 42.0 22.5 19.5 0.0 46.5% 381 367

Total 4 239.2 75.3 83.9 79.9 35.1% 1479 1313

Total Alpine

Production

920.0 555.8 115.4 248.8 12.5% 4948 4744

3. 2. 2 Assumptions

The following assumptions are used when calculating the results. Table 14 reproduced in Table 15

shows the four sectors which receive the initial impact of the bushfire. To account for the large

amount of uncertainty in impacts there is a low damage and high damage case to provide a range for

which the expected impacts may fall. The low damage shock represents 5 per cent damage to output

and the high damage shock represents damage to 15 per cent of output. These amounts compute to

be declines of $m 12 to $m 36. This can be verified with previous tax statistics (see section 3. 3. 2).

Table 15. Estimated final demand reductions

Sector Base level Low damage

(5%)

High

damage

(15%)

Low % of

Tourist

demand

High % of

Tourist

demand

Forestry 89.1 -4.5 -13.4

Retail 47.7 -2.4 -7.1 -11% -33%

Accom 60.4 -3.0 -9.1 -7% -21%

Food/Bev 42.0 -2.1 -6.3 -11% -32%

Total 239.2 -12.0 -35.9

3. 2. 3 Results

Table 16 shows the summary results from the base run with the initial impacts shown in Table 15.

The total impact of a bushfire based upon the impacts on the four sectors identified above would be a

decline between $m 18.5 to $m 55.4, which is about 2 to 6 per cent of total regional output.

Table 16. Estimated impact of bushfires on the Alpine region

Demand ($m &

%jobs) Initial impact Total impact

Low damage (5%)

Output Impact ($m) -12.0 -12.0 -18.5

Employment Impact (total no. jobs) -12.0 -73 -107

High damage (15%)

Output Impact ($m) -35.9 -35.9 -55.4

Employment Impact (total no. jobs) -35.9 -220 -321



30

The low damage panel shows that a decrease in 5 per cent in the output of the four selected

industries equates to a decline of $m 12 initial, the impact of closing businesses due to the bushfire or

associated closes for safety reasons, culminating in a total impact of about $m 18.5. The decline in

employment initially is a loss of 73 jobs (both full-time and part-time) with a total loss of 107 jobs. The

high damage panel shows that a 15 per cent decline in output of the four industries equates to a loss

of $m 35.9 in output initially and totally $m 321. Employment losses are about 220 jobs initially with a

total of 321. The initial impact on jobs is high due to the importance of employment of these sectors in

the Alpine region. It would be expected that a recovery would make the bulk of these losses

temporary and less than one year’s duration (see section 3. 3. 2).

The impact on some sectors is presented in Table 17. The total decline in agricultural output is $m 5.2

to $m 15.6, decline of $m 0.7 to $m 2.1 in manufacturing, and a decline of $m 12.6 to $m 37.8 in

services. The largest impact on output is the forestry sector, between $m 4.5 to 13.6, however as a

whole the tourism exposed sectors have an output decline between $m 8 to $m 24. Accommodation

is estimated to have the largest decline, between $m 3 to 9, followed by retail, $m 3 to 8, then food

and beverage services, a decline between $m 2 to $m 7. Cultural and recreational services are very

tourism dependent for output and they will also see a small decline, however this sector is small.6

Table 17. Sector breakdown of estimated impacts

SECTOR

Output Impact ($m) Employment Impact

(total no. jobs)

Low damage (5% ) High damage (15%)

Low damage (5%)

High damage (15%)

Demand ($m)

Total Demand ($m)

Total Initial Total Initial Total

Agriculture * 0.0 -0.7 0.0 -2.0 0 -4 0 -12

Forestry and Logging -4.5 -4.5 -13.4 -13.6 -6 -6 -18 -18

Mining 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

Manufacturing 0.0 -0.7 0.0 -2.1 0 -3 0 -9

Services * 0.0 -4.4 0.0 -13.1 0 -19 0 -56

Retail Trade -2.4 -2.8 -7.1 -8.3 -30 -34 -89 -103

Accommodation -3.0 -3.1 -9.1 -9.2 -19 -19 -57 -57

Food & Beverage Services -2.1 -2.4 -6.3 -7.2 -19 -22 -57 -65

Cultural & Recreational Serv. 0.0 -0.001 0.0 -0.003 0 0 0 0

Total -12.0 -18.5 -35.9 -55.4 -73 -107 -220 -321

* excludes sectors indented sectors listed below sector

Turning to the impacts upon employment agriculture sees a decline of 10 to 30 jobs, manufacturing 3

to 9 jobs, and services 94 to 282 job losses. Although Table 17 shows that much of the individual

sector impact in terms of output is in the forestry sector, the fall of employment is 6 to 18 jobs, small

relative to the total impact on jobs. The major employment losses occur in the services predominately

those related to tourist spending. The retail sector will see losses between 34 to 103 jobs, food

services losses between 22 to 65, and accommodation losses of 19 to 57 jobs.

6 It is difficult to measure the output of such services.



3. 2. 4 Further details of the results

This section provides more insights in how the effects flow through the system. Table 18 repeats with

extra information. Starting with additional rows, Gross Regional Product (GRP) is included. GRP

measures the net contribution of activity to the Alpine region, which is the value of output less costs of

production. The estimated loss to GRP is between $m 9 to $m 27. This table also includes a measure

of employment which converts total jobs to full time jobs. The estimated loss of full time (equivalent)

jobs is expected to be between 97 and 292.

Table 18: Estimated impact of bushfires on the Alpine region with breakdown of induced effects

Demand

($m) Initial

Production

Induced

Consumption

Induced Total

Low damage (5%)

Output Impact ($m) -12.0 -12.0 -3.9 -2.6 -18.5

GRP Impact ($m) -12.0 -5.8 -1.6 -1.5 -8.9

Employment Impact (total no. jobs) -12 -73 -18 -16 -107

Employment Impact (fte) -12 -65 -18 -14 -97

High damage (15%)

Output Impact ($m) -35.9 -35.9 -11.6 -7.9 -55.4

GRP Impact ($m) -35.9 -17.5 -4.8 -4.6 -26.8

Employment Impact (total no. jobs) -36 -220 -53 -48 -321

Employment Impact (fte) -36 -195 -54 -42 -292

GRP = Gross regional product, fte = full time equivalents.

3. 2. 5 Direct and indirect effects

The initial impacts are the direct effects, the decrease in the level of economic activity from the

bushfire. These are the equivalent of the total impacts of the four sectors in

Table 16. The decline in $m 12 (low damage case) translates into a loss of $m 5.8 GRP, 73 jobs, and

65 fte jobs while the decline of $m 36 of output translates to $m 18 GRP, 220 jobs, and 195 fte jobs.

As the direct effects work their way through the Alpine region, the shortfall of demand will impact upon

the other industries, for example a decline in retail impacts upon wholesalers and manufactures.

These effects are called indirect effects and found in the column labelled production induced. The

effect on economy wide output from the initial lost production from the bushfire totals to $m 4 ($m 1.6

GRP). The impact of less output required realises a loss of 18 jobs.

The consumption induced effects are the result from less spending in the Alpine economy.7 As job

losses mount and less goods become available, people are more cautious about spending money,

resulting in less consumption spending, requiring less production in the economy. The impact of

reduced consumption from the bushfire, results in a loss of output between $m 3 to $m 8 ($m 2 to 5

GRP). The employment losses are between 16 and 48 jobs.

The combined effect produces the total effect. It is the sum of the initial impact of the bushfire on the

four sectors, plus the flow on effects (both induced production and induced consumption). In terms of

output the result is $m 12 + (3.9 + 2.6) = 18.5 for low damage and $m 35.9 + (11.6 + 7.9) = 55.4 for

high damage.

7 The reduction in spending to both indirect and direct effects. This sometimes is called the induced effect.



32

3. 2. 6 Multipliers

The multiplier is an index which indicates how much a direct impact will impact totally on an economy.

To measure the flow on effect two ratios are calculated: Type 1 and Type 2. The type 1 ratio

computes the production impacts from a stimulus.

𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒 1 = ((𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 & 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡)) ⁄ (𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡).

The type 2 ratio computes the total effect from a stimulus.

𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒 2 = ((𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 & 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 & 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠)) ⁄ (𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡)

The ratios from the analysis above are shown in Table 19. The values are from Table 18.

Table 19. Economy wide multipliers for output and employment

SECTOR Direct Indirect Induced Ratio

Output Multipliers

$Output/$FD

Type 1 ratio -12.0 -3.9 1.323

Type 2 ratio -12.0 -3.9 -2.6 1.545

Employment Multipliers

Jobs/$mFD

Type 1 ratio -73 -18 1.243

Type 2 ratio -73 -18 -16 1.462

Direct is the initial impact, Indirect is the production induced effect, and Induced is the consumption

induced effect. The values are linear so whether using low damage or high damage does not matter.

$FD = per final demand.

We also provide the individual sector multipliers for the three tourism heavy sectors. They are

provided in Table 20. For a reduction of $1 in retail we can expect a total decline of $1.63 and 1.275

jobs lost. Note that the initial number of jobs lost is 12 which results in a total of 16 job losses.

Table 20. Individual sector multipliers

SECTOR Initial Direct Indirect Induced Total Type I Type II

Output Multipliers

$Output/$FD

Retail 1.000 0.214 0.095 0.325 1.634 1.309 1.634

Accom 1.000 0.272 0.124 0.229 1.625 1.396 1.625

FoodBev 1.000 0.230 0.102 0.261 1.593 1.332 1.593

Employment Multipliers

Jobs/$mFD

Retail 12.429 0.982 0.474 1.967 15.852 1.117 1.275

Accom 6.235 1.069 0.660 1.384 9.348 1.277 1.499

FoodBev 8.977 0.968 0.599 1.580 12.124 1.175 1.351

Interpretation: Number of jobs per $1 million dollars of sales to final demand



3. 3 Impacts on Harrietville

This section uses the multipliers (Table 20) to estimate the impacts of reduced tourist flow on

Harrietville. Tourism Research Australia calculates the total spend is $m 6.3 for year 2013 (see Table

13). We use the same range approach as above with low damage = $310 000 and high damage $940

000. We compute the sectors percentage of tourism final demand (from Table 14) and multiply that

percent by the total damage direct above providing an estimate of the direct decline. The direct

decline is then multiplied by the multiplier to obtain an estimate of the total impact. The results from a

decline in output from a bushfire range between $510 000 to $1 530 000 and are shown in Table 21.

If employment figures are known, then a similar analysis can be performed for employment.

Table 21. Impacts on Harrietville

% of tourism final

output

Output

multiplier Direct decline Total output

Low damage (5%)

Retail 0.26 1.63 -0.08 -0.13

Accom 0.51 1.62 -0.16 -0.26

FoodBev 0.23 1.59 -0.07 -0.12

Total

-0.31 -0.51

High damage (15%)

Retail 0.26 1.63 -0.24 -0.40

Accom 0.51 1.62 -0.48 -0.78

FoodBev 0.23 1.59 -0.22 -0.35

Total

-0.94 -1.53

Sector tourism % is the percentage of sector’s tourism of the three sectors (see Table 14 column

four). Direct decline = -0.31x sector tourism %. Total output = direct decline x output multiplier.

Multipliers are from table

3. 3. 1 Limitations

There are some limitations to using input-output models, such as the assumptions of constant returns

to scale and linear production functions. A further major limitation to this methodology is the large data

requirements. At the regional level, the accuracy of sales and their impacts have a large amount of

uncertainty describing them. Although not important for this study, the expansion of an industry

requires resource mobilisation, which puts upwards pressure on prices, which are not well captured in

this model.

This model does not include any spatial effects of where the fire impacts, and how much damage it

does on its path (such as towns or surrounds). The model used does not account for spatial analysis

beyond industry connections, which is why they are omitted. To overcome this limitation a low

damage and high damage range is provided to try to capture some of that impact. One other sector

could have been included as sources of initial impacts (Dairy), however economically its contribution

to the region is much smaller than the four chosen.

Another limitation of the model is the element of time. The inputs in the model represent years, such

that annual production for the Alpine region is $m 920. However, the impact on the region would

depend upon the time of year, as well as how fast the recovery would be. As the initial shock would

occur in one month it would appear not to be unreasonable to expect that recovery of some sorts

would have started within three months after the initial impact. The model cannot capture this dynamic

(even if the recovery phase was) therefore we have chosen 5 per cent and 15 per cent as value

bounds which seem reasonable to capture this effect.



34

3. 3. 2 Validation of results with past experiences

In conducting this bushfire impact simulation based on input output analysis, we have used the range

5-15 per cent of final demand. We adopted this range based on an examination of taxable income

data for individuals for the Alpine Shire. This data provides information about the size of taxable

income in total and for various sources of income, such as wages and salaries and for unincorporated

enterprises by LGA. It can be expected that many tourist enterprises will be conducted by companies

but at the smaller scale there will be a large number of unincorporated enterprises and it might be

expected that these would be most severely impacted by the fire. There is no data on company

income tax at the LGA level.

We examined both the change in total taxable income for the Alpine Shire and that for unincorporated

enterprises to establish a possible impact range for further analysis. While the actual change is

important, of greater relevance is the relative rate of growth in the Shire compared with Victoria. As a

measure of the possible sizes of the impact, we compared rates of growth in the Alpine shire with the

average across Victoria and used the difference as an approximate impact measure.

The 2006-07 Alpine Bushfires appears to have had a marked effect on total taxable incomes for

individuals in the Alpine shire. Growth in total incomes was only 3.6 per cent per annum compared

with 8.0 per cent for Victoria between 2006-07 and 2005-06 and again between 2007-08 and 2006-07

was only 4.7 per cent compared with 9.4 per cent for Victoria, which is a difference averaging about

4.5 per cent per annum for the two years following the bushfires.

The impact on unincorporated business enterprises appears, as one would expect, to be much

greater. Taxable income for unincorporated business enterprises fell 14.1 per cent between 2006-07

and 2005-06 and grew by only 1.5 per cent between 2007-08 and 2006-07 compared with growth for

Victoria of 4.1 per cent per annum and 21.2 per cent per annum respectively, that is a difference

averaging about 19 per cent per annum for the period. Figure 8 shows the divergent trends in taxable

income following the bushfires.

Figure 8. Taxable income: Unincorporated enterprises, Victoria and Alpine Shire, 2005-06 to

2010-11 ($m)

Source: ABS Estimates of Personal Income for Small Areas, Time Series, 2005-06 to 2010-

11(cat: 6524.0.55.002)

There are of course many possible reasons for these differences in growth rates, including population

movement and other economic drivers. However, in the several years following this period the

difference in growth in total taxable incomes reduced to an average of about 1 per cent per annum

lending support to the proposition that the marked differences in growth rates were bushfire related.

Accordingly, we regarded these differences as upper and lower bounds in impact on total demand to

test in the input output analysis.



3. 4 Conclusion

This section quantifies the economic impacts of a bushfire for the Alpine region. An input-output

model was used to obtain estimated the effects upon output and employment. The results indicate

that a bushfire;

• may result in a decline between $m 18.5 to $m 55.4 in output for the Alpine region;

• may result in a decline between 107 to 321 total jobs for the Alpine region;

• for a visitor spend of $m 6.3 in Harrietville a decline in output from a bushfire may range between

$510 000 to $1 530 000.

These results do not include a recovery effect once the bushfire has passed. The range of values is

expected to aid policy makers and other interested parties in decision making. Further, multipliers are

provided so as interested readers can do their own analysis. The analysis does, however, give an

indication of a possible range of economic loss experienced due to fire incidents. The focus of the

following section is to examine how such losses might be minimised through adaptation and resilience

building strategies.



36

Section Four: Tourism Vulnerability and

Resilience Assessment for Harrietville

4. 1 Introduction

The aim of this section is to provide a vulnerability and resilience (V/R) assessment of the tourism

economy of Harrietville informed by data gathered over the course of the project including data

collected from the Harrietville visitor survey, in-depth interviews, an economic analysis and other

relevant secondary data.8 The section begins with an explanation of the conceptual framework

applied before discussing key elements of the V/R analysis. This includes an exploration of ‘shocks’,

‘stressors’, ‘vulnerabilities’ and ‘resilience factors’ in order to provide an understanding of the factors

that contribute to the underlying vulnerability9 and resilience of Harrietville in the Ovens and Alpine

area of North East Victoria, Australia. While this V/R assessment was conducted in the context of

bushfire risk, a bushfire in itself does not cause vulnerability – instead it is better conceptualised as a

trigger that reveals underlying vulnerability and resilience in a destination (Calgaro et al., 2014).

4. 2 Conceptual framework

Informed by tourism adaptation theory, this project takes the V/R approach and seeks to understand

the complex interactions between external risks (with a particular focus on bushfire risk) and the

affected tourism system’s conditions. A myriad of compounding (and often overlapping) economic,

political, and environmental factors in the tourism destination/system can directly and indirectly disrupt

tourist flows (e. g. Baker & Coulter, 2007; Burak, Dogan, & Gazioglu, 2004; Faulkner, 2001; Prideaux,

2004; Richter & Waugh Jr, 1986; Ritchie, 2008; Sharpley, 2005), which means that the effectiveness

of resilience-building activities for tourism ultimately relies on understanding and addressing the

underlying socio-political processes and environmental linkages that form the foundations of

vulnerability (Calgaro et al., 2014). The Destination Sustainability Framework (DSF) (Figure 9) is used

in this project as the overarching theoretical framework for assessing tourism vulnerability and

resilience to inform tourism planning and management in the context of fire risk.

4. 2. 1 Harrietville in the context of bushfires.

The purpose of the DSF is to guide the identification of the multiple factors and processes that

influence vulnerability and resilience in the tourism context, along with the social actors and agendas

that drive action and non-action. Understanding these factors and processes creates entry points for

effective adjustments and positive change. Originally developed by Calgaro (2010); Calgaro et al.

(2014), the DSF has been modified and applied in a number of destinations in the South Pacific

including Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu. The main modifications include aspects of the tourism system

model (Gunn, 1994; Leiper, 2004) as well as the climate adaptation portfolio for the tourism‐recreation

sector by Scott et al. (2009). This was done to focus the framework on the type of adaptation

strategies available to tourism stakeholders to (1) reduce vulnerability and increase resilience; and (2)

prepare and adapt to change. As shown in the Figure 9, the DSF comprises six main elements: (i) the

combination of shock(s) and/or stressor(s) that affect destinations, (ii) the three interconnected

dimensions of vulnerability - exposure, sensitivity, and system adaptiveness - that form the core of the

DSF, (iii) the dynamic feedback loops that express the multiple outcomes or consequences of actions

taken (or not taken) in response to the shocks and stressors, (iv) the contextualised root causes and

drivers that shape places (including destinations) and their characteristics, (v) the scale, and (vi)

multiple timeframes within which social-ecological change occurs.

8 See 0 for details of methodology and results.

9 Vulnerability is a place-based and dynamic condition of the coupled human-environment system and is defined here as “the

degree to which an exposure unit [households, human groups, ecosystems, and communities] is susceptible to harm due to exposure to a perturbation or stress, and the ability (or lack thereof) of the exposure unit to cope, recover, or fundamentally adapt (Kasperson, Turner, Schiller, & Hsieh, 2001, p. 7)”.



The following sections further explain the key components of the DSF and how the Tourism System

Model (adapted from Leiper, 2004) and Climate Adaptation Portfolio for the Tourism-Recreation

Sector (Scott et al., 2009) fit in to the DSF to add the required depth needed to assess the

vulnerability and resilience of destinations and the supporting tourism system to change, with

particular emphasis given to climatic changes.

Figure 9. The modified Destination Sustainability Framework (DSF) (Adapted from Calgaro et al. 2014)10

10 The modification of DSF (Calgaro 2010; Calgaro et al. 2014) for tourism vulnerability and resilience assessment in the context of climate

change was made to be applied in an AusAID Australian Development Research Award Project Pacific Tourism – Climate Adaptation Project

(PT-CAP) (ADRA0800029). The key research team that contributed to the development of the modified DSF include Dr Emma Calgaro, Dr

Louise Munk Klint, Dr Min Jiang, Professor Terry DeLacy, and Professor Dale Dominey-Howes.



38

4. 2. 2 Shocks and Stressors

The V/R analysis begins with identifying to what the tourism destination/system is vulnerable or

resilient, which is the event or events that destabilises the existing system. The shocks and

stressors element (to what) is shown as piercing the core of the social-ecological system. The event

does not cause vulnerability - it is the trigger event that reveals vulnerability and resilience patterns -

but the nature of the shock or stressor does influence how the system is affected over space and time

(Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon, & Davis, 2004). Shocks and stressors are differentiated here because they

have significant implications for prioritising adaptation strategies especially when resources are

limited (Jiang & DeLacy, 2014). Figure 9 shows that the extended yellow box on the bottom of the

modified DSF includes a range of shocks and stressors relevant for the South Pacific small island

destinations. This provides an example of localised identification of shocks and stressors. In this

project, bushfire is the pre-determined risk concerned. However, a range of other shocks and

stressors facing the local tourism stakeholders in Harrietville were also identified.

4. 2. 3 The Tourism System

The addition of the Tourism System Model in the application of the DSF is helpful to fully understand

who is vulnerable or resilient to the shocks and stressors. It is important to identify the key players of

the tourism system because they might be potentially exposed to shocks and stressors in different

ways (Jiang & DeLacy, 2014). Their perceptions towards certain shocks and stressors may also vary,

which could lead to difference in their vulnerability and resilience level. The identification of the

tourism system components also helps to scope out the relevant stakeholders who are in special

need for, responsible for, or able to take adaptation actions.

4. 2. 4 Vulnerability and Resilience

Vulnerability and resilience are place-specific conditions of the coupled human-environment system.

Therefore, the three interconnected dimensions of vulnerability form the heart of the DSF (the three

columns at the centre of Figure 9. The factors that contribute to exposure, sensitivity, and system

adaptiveness are then broken down into subgroups, enabling the easy identification of key

assessment focal points, but the lists are not exhaustive.

Exposure presents an inventory of the destination’s defining physical characteristics. Sensitivity

captures the pre-existing economic, social, political and environmental conditions that shape how the

destination is affected by the shocks and stressors. System adaptiveness highlights how the system

and its people respond to the shocks and stressors, and the consequences of these responses. There

are numerous ways in which different tourism stakeholders can respond and adapt to change. In line

with Scott et al. (2009) Climate Adaptation Portfolio for the Tourism-Recreation Sector, the types of

adaptation responses are grouped under six categories: behavioural and social; technical and

structural; business management; policy; research; and education. It is important to understand that

post-event responses may have different consequences on future vulnerability and resilience levels in

the tourism system/destination. Actions can produce both positive and negative outcomes for different

players in the tourism system. Positive outcomes lead to reduced exposure and vulnerability and

enhanced resilience. In contrast, lack or failure of adaptation may increase vulnerability levels. This

feedback loop is shown in the Figure 9 by the green (positive feedback) and dark red (negative

feedback) arrows.

The tourism destination and its tourism system do not exist in vacuum. It is important to understand

the socially constructed and dynamic spatio-temporal context within which vulnerability and resilience

manifest in the tourism destination/system. This context, including place, scale, and time, is also

acknowledged in the framework (Figure 9). The destination’s vulnerability and resilience to shocks

and stressors are shaped by multiple actions and decisions, which occur at different levels of place,

scale, and time.

The actions and decisions of actors involved in the tourism system are also influenced by a range of

contextual factors, as shown in the element of place (in the pink area of Figure 9). As a crucial part of

the tourism system, tourists’ perceptions of the destination, their travel choices or preferences play a

significant role in determining destination vulnerability to shocks and stressors. Scale represents the

tourism system, through its various actors, its value chain, and social networks, crossing local,

regional, national, and international levels (in the green area of Figure 9).



Finally, the element of time is represented in the blue area of Figure 9, acknowledging the importance

of the timing of responses to shocks and stressors and their consequent outcomes in planning

effective adaptation. These contextual spatio-temporal factors interact with the tourism system’s

environmental, political, economic and social conditions, which together influences vulnerability and

resilience. Investigation of place, time, and scale is embedded in the vulnerability/resilience analysis

as integral consideration in the assessment.

4. 2. 5 Data collection and analysis methods

As detailed in 0, the primary data collection took place predominantly in and around Harrietville

utilising multiple methods. This analysis relies particularly on in-depth interview findings. A total of 25

semi-structured interviews (average 45 minutes in length, mostly face-to face with a couple of

telephone interviews) were conducted using a question outline to guide the interviews. Despite the

structured question outline, the interviews allowed flexibility for the researchers to seek clarification or

elaboration on specific topics, as well as for interviewees to tell their stories without being interrupted.

Interview participants included tourism stakeholders, members of the community and representatives

from various government departments involved in bushfire management. The concept of data

saturation point (Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell, & Alexander, 1995) was used to indicate when to stop

further interviewing as the themes emerging from the interviews started repeating themselves and no

new information or themes were emerging.

Interviewees were identified to ensure the representation of a cross-section of people connected with

the Harrietville tourism system. These included people engaged in operating private tourism

businesses, community members with an interest in the wider social and economic wellbeing of the

Harrietville community, relevant governance officers at state, regional and local levels and other peak

tourism and event management organisations. The specific selection of interviewees was guided by

advice from Emergency Management Victoria (EMV) and community planning forums with

consideration given to minimising any inconvenience to interviewees, the need to coordinate with

other community planning activities and consider seasonal factors that affected the availability of

interviewees. While not exhaustive, the final twenty-five interviews achieved the aim of gaining a

cross-section of perspectives to inform the analysis.

The cross section of interviewees by stakeholder group is shown in Table 22.

Table 22. Sample of interviews by stakeholder group

Breakdown of Interviews by Stakeholder Group

Tourism Industry (including operators, event organisers and peak bodies). 11

Community Participants in this category were chosen because of their individual community perspectives

and engagement with community planning processes - however, most also have a stake in tourism

through the nature of their employment, business operations or their interest in community wellbeing.

5

Government Officers (from across the spectrum of tourism related sectors such as parks management,

land use planning, community engagement and events management)

9

The interviews were audio recorded subject to the participant consent, and professionally transcribed.

All transcripts were then coded and analysed using a thematic analysis approach in the NVivo 10

software (Patton, 2002). Through the identification of categorical themes (Patton, 2002), the central

themes were identified to primarily reflect the detailed components featured in the modified DSF.



40

4. 3 Key findings of the vulnerability/resilience (V/R) assessment

4. 3. 1 Specifying the risks

A scoping of the external risks for Harrietville’s tourism system was conducted by identifying the major

shocks and stressors (rapid vs slow onset) that Harrietville has experienced in recent years. As

anticipated, the two major shocks were identified as bushfires and associated flooding and landslides.

The identified stressors included the bushfire-triggered factors of sensationalized media coverage,

disruptions caused by fire-fighting operations, as well as road and track closures. Additionally, there

are stressors which had not been triggered directly by a bushfire-event. These include heat waves,

bad snow seasons and preventative control burns, as well as the underlying progression of climate

change.

Shocks

Bushfire

Harrietville is surrounded by expanses of bushland and bushfire risk is accepted as a part of life.

However, in recent years, several major bushfires events have occurred in the region in close

proximity. These included the bushfire events of 2003, 2006/07, 2009 and 2013. This V/R assessment

was conducted in the context of the most recent fire, which started on 21 January 2013 and was

ignited through a lightning strike at Smoko, around four kilometres north-east of Harrietville. The fire

eventually burnt 37,000 hectares of Alpine National Park over a period of 55 days, with the tragic loss

of two firefighters and with the Alpine Shire estimating a collective economic loss of $40 million

(Hallowes, 2013).

Named as the “Harrietville Fire” this bushfire did not actually cause damage to Harrietville itself (and

neither has any other bushfire in the past), but the unfolding events during, and for a long time after

the fire had ceased, have had significant effects on Harrietville’s tourism system. These events are

analysed in this V/R assessment to identify the underlying factors for vulnerability and resilience in

Harrietville. Some of these factors are fire-related, while others are not. The intent of identifying these

factors is to inform future planning and management of future bushfire risk with consideration of the

tourism impacts. The analysis is also important to inform the development of measures to adapt to

climate change with the frequency and severity of bushfires expected to increase (Hughes & Steffen,

2013).

Flooding and landslides (caused by heavy rain after the fire)

The bushfire of 2013 was followed by heavy rains causing further shocks to the system. With little

vegetation left after a fire, burnt mountain areas are particularly susceptible to erosion, when the “first

lot of rain sends all the silt, all the ash, all the soot, everything else down and kills fish, kills whatever

wildlife is left”. The heavy rains consequently resulted in landslides, one of which caused the Great

Alpine Road to slip away between Harrietville and Mt Hotham, severing the Great Alpine Rd between

Harrietville and Mt Hotham. The Ovens River, already clogged with post-fire debris became

completely blocked, eventually flooding parts of the town. Some properties and tourism businesses

were badly affected, including washed-away bridges and footpaths, as well as flooded rooms and

destroyed gardens - requiring what are effectively major clean-up operations for small businesses

with only a few employees and affecting their ability to trade as normal. This came as an additional

shock to an already stressed tourism system:

We just had the six to eight weeks of the fire impacting the town, destroyed tourism and

everything else and then we had the flash flood that flooded us out. We figured the next thing,

[Mount] Feathertop was going to turn into a volcano and burn us all in hot lava just to finish us

off, those of us that hadn't been impacted.

The ash and debris run-off caused considerable water pollution with impacts on the visual amenity

(e.g. dead fish and platypus caught in sticks) and death to fish stocks. This had particular impacts on

the Trout Farm, one important attraction in the Harrietville area. From a tourism perspective, the river

became unusable for months because it was “just black”.



Stressors

The nature of the media coverage (bushfire event related stressor)

The nature of the media coverage is widely understood as particularly damaging for Harrietville as the

media’s “…appetite and zest for drama tends to override their ability to communicate a strong, clear

safe message without alienating people’s desire to come up here… In the aftermath, the

communications and also during the bushfire, the media get hold of it and blow it – disaster sells well”.

Sensationalised and misleading news coverage particularly affects those businesses that cannot

communicate easily with their customers. Those with large group bookings usually communicate with

one central person and can easily relay the message when it is safe or not safe to visit. Caravan

parks, motels, hotels and tourism operators often do not have this option and their visitors get their

information primarily from the media with direct consequences if misinformation is presented. In

addition to anger about management decision by authorities, the nature of the media coverage has

been the focus of particular anger by the local community. Further stress was added by the fact that

the fire had been named the “Harrietville Fire”, thereby impacting tourism even though the fire had, for

the most part, travelled a considerable distance from the town.

Disruptions caused by fire-fighting operations (bushfire event related stressor)

In the most recent bushfire of 2013, Harrietville became a crucial and necessary base for the fire-

fighting operations. At the height of the operation, some 50 fire trucks, 150 other smaller four-wheel

drive vehicles were operating in and out of Harrietville, up and down tracks, and using Harrietville as a

bypass. Ten aircraft were operating out of the Harrietville cricket ground with associated bulk fuel

tankers and other support operations and helicopters collecting water from the local dredge holes

(normally used for swimming). Even though the fire and threat had passed Harrietville, the town and

its tourism system continued to be under the stress of the operations for the duration of the fire as one

interviewee described:

So, for six weeks all day there was a series of four or five or six helicopters flying low over the

town, that created just a noise even though we couldn’t see the fire, the fire was already out

there gone somewhere but we still had this chaos. So, its impact on the town in that sense,

without talking about tourism, is a long-term impact and through that period of time at the same

time our tourist industry is stopped.

Road and track closures (bushfire event related stressor)

After the bushfires and landslides of 2013, the Great Alpine Road was damaged and closed for

months for major repair work, with only limited access periods. Being the only road connecting

Harrietville to Mt Hotham and Gippsland, this was particularly damaging for Harrietville’s tourism

system. As access to Harrietville was so limited, so too was any tourism spending… “so really, from

the 24th January to Easter, the town basically had no income”. Road works also limited access for the

myriad of other services a tourism business relies on, such as the delivery of goods, as well as repair

and maintenance services, often conducted at that time of year. A further effect was a loss of work for

those in the community that work at Mt Hotham.

The stress of road closure was compounded by the use of road signage that was misleading, limiting

the existing access even further as it did not give exact details of closure points, opening times or

reasons how and why it was closed. Signage was easily interpreted as if it was not possible to reach

Harrietville - thereby confusing potential visitors even further. Finally, repeated road closures over the

long term may become an image problem for the destination, as “there is a fear that visitors will start

to see Harrietville as unreliable and travel to Hotham via Omeo”.

The many four-wheel drive and walking tracks that crisscross the landscape are Harrietville’s main

thoroughfare for nature-based tourism (Harrietville’s major tourism asset). These tracks were also

closed for months generating a major stressor for tourism in Harrietville because “there was nothing

they could do. They couldn’t go anywhere. So, they just didn’t come”. For instance, the West Ovens

Track, the main thoroughfare into the hills for motorbikes, four-wheel drivers and hunters was closed

for access from Harrietville for 12 months.



42

While access to the hills was possible from further afield, it meant that four-wheel drive clubs,

motorbike clubs and individuals “were not coming into Harrietville to get a coffee or stay at the pub on

the night before they left [or] have a meal [ ], because of the fact that that track was closed for 12

months”. These closures were therefore a key stressor on the town’s tourism economy.

Heat waves (general stressor)

While extreme heat is one of the critical factors in bushfire risk, it also affects tourism without the

occurrence of a bushfire event. High temperatures affect the ability of event organisers to run an

event as planned (e.g. cycling) and impact visitation as visitors are put off because “you’re not going

to go ride a bike or do cellar tastings —you’re not going to do anything in 40-degree temperatures”.

Many tourism businesses lost cancellations earlier this year due to the extreme heatwave from 13-18

January 2014.

Bad snow seasons (general stressor)

The effects of a bad snow season in the ski fields on Harrietville are twofold. Winter visitors to Mt

Hotham (e.g. skiers) often stay in Harrietville and only drive up the mountain during the day, while

others travelling to and from the ski fields often stop in Harrietville for fuel, a meal or other supplies. A

bad snow season consequently has a direct effect on the tourism economy in Harrietville. The

mountain also plays an important role as an employer for local residents and if the ski resorts are

struggling the effects can be felt in the community in terms of less employment and lower visitation.

Preventative control burns (general stressor)

Prescribed fuel reduction burning is now a central fire risk reduction strategy administered by DEPI.

Smoke and smoke haze, however, is a stressor for tourism and a serious issue for the wine industry

and can taint the tourism experience. This is particularly an issue for Harrietville given its location in a

valley where smoke takes some time to disperse. There is also a relatively narrow time period in

which control burning can be safely (ie. the weather is not too hot) or practically (ie. The fuel is not so

damp that it will burn). The few opportunities to conduct control burning is primarily in the Autumn

months of March, April and May, which also coincides with peak tourism periods. Reconciling the

need for burning to reduce fire risk, with the need to retain Harrietville’s image as a pristine tourism

destination, is a key stressor.

Climate change (stressor influencing bushfire risk)

Climate change is an important underlying stressor influencing the frequency and severity of bushfire

events - thereby increasing the overall bushfire risk for Harrietville (Hughes and Steffen, 2013). The

bushland ecosystems surrounding Harrietville are naturally adapted to sporadically occurring bushfire

events, but they are not able to adapt for a quick succession of major bushfires as recently

experienced. By increasing the risk of frequency and severity of bushfire events, climate change

presents an underlying factor in each of the identified, bushfire-related shocks and stressors. Fire

seasons are expected to lengthen into the future, further reducing the opportunities for safe hazard

reduction burning (Hughes & Steffen, 2013).

4. 3. 2 Understanding vulnerability

Vulnerability can be defined as “the degree to which an exposure unit [households, human groups,

ecosystems, and communities] is susceptible to harm due to exposure to a perturbation or stress, and

the ability (or lack thereof) of the exposure unit to cope, recover, or fundamentally adapt” (Kasperson

et al., 2001, p. 7). It is a property of the coupled human-environment system that is determined by

three interconnected dimensions: exposure, sensitivity and system adaptiveness (Calgaro et al.,

2014).

Exposure

As described earlier, Harrietville is highly exposed to bushfire and its related impacts due to its

location at the far end of the Oven’s Valley and is the last main town before the ski resort of Mt

Hotham coming from the Hume Freeway (M31). It is surrounded by bushland - state forest (crown

land) to the west and national park to the east – each managed by separate land and fire

management authorities. The state forest has many fire trails, which allows good access for example

for four-wheel driving, hunting and mountain biking, while the national park provides predominantly

bushwalking tracks and huts.



Harrietville’s bushfire risk has been formulated collaboratively by the emergency services and

members of the community as follows:

Although Harrietville has no bushfire history within the town, certain circumstances have the

potential to generate bushfire events of extreme risk. The township of Harrietville is situated in

a valley surrounded by State Forest and National Parks. Local residents and visitors should

be prepared for fire and have a plan for when the Fire Danger Rating is SEVERE, EXTREME

or CODE RED. The extreme bushfire risk comes from the combination of high fuel loads in

the surrounding forest, homes nestled into bushland, the hilly terrain and a lack of

accessibility with one way in and out of town via the Great Alpine Road. Living, visiting or

working in this area means you must have a well-developed bushfire survival plan for ALL

days when hot, dry and windy weather increases the bushfire risk (CFA, 2014, p. 1).

The Country Fire Authority (CFA) (CFA, 2014, p. 2) also characterises bushfire risk in Harrietville as

being generated by steep terrain and heavy vegetation on all sides. Heavy vegetation and topography

create the potential for severe ember attack and direct fire into the town environs with properties

located higher in the valley being particularly vulnerable due to the tendency of fire to travel rapidly

up-hill. In 2003 fire came within 200 metres of the town. The section between Harrietville, Hotham

Heights and Dinner Plain is also particularly narrow with sharp twists and bends, steep inclines and

very heavy roadside vegetation. Travelling along this road may not be safe during extreme weather

and/or bushfire events.

In 2011, Harrietville had a resident population of 402 residents (Easterbrook, 2013)-a considerably

larger population than in 1981, when the population stood at 156). As a small Alpine town close to the

ski fields it attracts new residents with the promise of a new life. “Nobody’s getting rich having a

business in Harrietville. What they’ve got themselves is a lifestyle”. The community perspective of

Harrietville as unique, authentic and a place to enjoy a country lifestyle is supported by an Alpine

Shire business survey that identifies ‘lifestyle’ as overwhelmingly the major motivation for business

operators to operate within the locality (Alpine Shire Council, 2011). As a destination, it offers

approximately 600 commercial beds, a caravan park with a 400-guest capacity and houses that are

rented out in busy periods.

Constraining factors in sensitivity

Strong economic dependence on nature-based tourism and tourism transit

Primarily, Harrietville is economically dependent on nature-based tourism as well as tourism transit

(primarily to Mt Hotham but also as part of a number of car, bike, walking and 4wheel drive routes).

With the exception of forestry there are very limited economic alternatives and when Harrietville loses

visitation it effectively loses its economy. The five major pillars of tourism in the region are: snow –

Alpine winter experiences; cycling – road, trail and mountain biking; Food, wine and beer; nature-

based experiences – alpine and non-alpine walking, horse riding, water sport, fishing; and, cultural

heritage (Tourism North East, 2013). These are complemented by many events and festivals in the

region that also play an important economic role for Harrietville (e.g. for accommodation, as a touring

stop and many flow-on effects). These major tourism pillars all interlink with one another through the

dependence on the beauty of the alpine scenery and all rely heavily on prime weather conditions.

While the regional tourism product is increasingly being diversified, there is limited potential to

diversify beyond the broader nature-based or weather-dependent product.

All of Harrietville’s tourism activity can therefore be affected by bushfire for extended periods of time -

and long past the time when emergency response operations have been completed. After the 2013

bushfire, tourism revenue was significantly affected for several months. However, the cumulative

effect of the identified shocks and stressors caused a visible effect in tourism revenue for most of the

year. On this point, it is important to note that the nature of the tourism business differs to other

economic sectors. Tourism loss cannot be made up later - when a bed is not filled the income is lost.

Timing therefore plays a critical role in sensitivity. The bushfire of 2013 occurred immediately after the

Christmas holiday and some of busiest weeks had already occurred and so Harrietville did generate

substantial tourism income for most of January. In this sense, the losses were less severe than if the

fire occurred earlier, in which case, the impact would arguably have been much worse.



44

The nature of tourism business and employment also plays an important role. Most Harrietville

businesses are small and family-run. Many do not have business plans and income insurance is often

not considered feasible due to the high cost compared to the small business. Additionally, there have

been reported problems with insurance payments (i.e. not actually covered for flood, only partial

payments due to errors in evaluation). Casual employment is common, and the cumulative effects of

shocks and stressors directly impacts on the ability of tourism businesses to provide work

opportunities. With very few tourism-unrelated work opportunities, it is practically impossible for

people to recover economically, emotionally and socially until the tourism sector recovers.

Dependence on access via the Great Alpine Rd

The events of 2013 have demonstrated the dependence of the tourism sector on access provided by

the Great Alpine Road and the few major access points to the forest (such as Mill Road) as there are

no alternative routes. If these major thoroughfares are affected, Harrietville loses its second important

tourism element: tourism transit. The tourist survey conducted for this report indicated that 15 per cent

of all first-time visitors to Harrietville were in transit to other areas such as Mount Hotham and Dinner

Plain, even though the survey was conducted over the Easter period (outside the ski season).

Therefore, with both major tourism pillars affected, Harrietville is in a situation where economic

vulnerability and resilience becomes severely affected by decisions that would otherwise only cause a

minor disruption (e.g. track closures).

Sensitive destination image

The strong economic dependence on nature-based tourism and tourism transit underline the

importance of maintaining a positive destination image. If an image develops that casts doubt on

whether Harrietville is able to provide the desired nature-based experience and transit access, there

are no alternatives for the destination to fall back on. This sensitivity was highlighted in particular by

the effects of the sensationalized media coverage and the naming of the bushfire as the “Harrietville

Fire”. Potential tourists do not usually have access to local information. According to the tourist

survey, more than 60 per cent of tourists learnt about fires thought general media, which tend to

sensationalise the fire events, and may alter tourist’s choices and preferences of destinations. One

interviewee expressed the concern about the destination image sensitivity by saying

I guess the other area we don’t know is, is it changing people’s perceptions on visiting not only

Harrietville but anywhere in the bush in the summer time? Is that perception changing? I don’t

know but we do know that we were having cancellations right through the year based on the

fact that they thought that things would be different [after the fire].

The Harrietville visitor survey results show that nearly a quarter of visitors (14.2 per cent) who

participated in the survey changed their plans as a result of a bushfire event. This represents a small

percentage, which is consistent with only 26.4 per cent of survey respondents being the first-time

visitor. What is more concerning is that, while repeat visitors tend to keep coming back to Harrietville

regardless of potential fire risk, new visitors seem to be more influenced by ‘the media build up’. As

one interview source told, ‘there were a lot of concerns for new bookings because they’d heard –

because of all the media…’ The survey results also show that 59 per cent of participating visitors are

concerned or very concerned about the bushfire risk in Harrietville during the summer period, leaving

them open to media influence.

Constraining government processes

One of the defining characteristics of Harrietville is its location in the centre of large tracts of state and

national park with state parks to the west and national park to the east and south east. Consequently,

responsibility for land management for the parks and the town lies with multiple organisations and

agencies. Interview results revealed some on-going concerns by the community and private sector in

relation to a perceived lack of co-ordination, communication and community engagement by

government agencies concerning land and fire risk management. For example, interviewees sited

instances where four-wheel drive tracks have been closed without community consultation and such

measures have impacts on visitors and business operators.



At the same time, planning, governance and land management officers highlight the challenges of

implementing national or state policy within the area, with limited human and financial resources, and

in a large and geographically diverse region. Concerns were also expressed by government officers

about the difficulties in managing some inherent conflicts between the necessary implementation of

safety or conservation measures and the interests of varied tourism business operations that rely on

nature-based tourism assets.

As discussed in the report background, there has been considerable progress in implementing

processes and forums to improve government and community communications. While

communications may have improved, as many interviewees suggest, interviews also revealed that

misunderstanding continues between varied stakeholders in the tourism system. These findings point

to the need for on-going efforts to build and sustain effective and productive communication between

the community and government.

Development barriers

A key issue highlighted by interviewees is that Harrietville is not connected to a mains sewerage

system, which has consequences for tourism development. While many businesses have installed

newer treatment plants, there are still many old or ad hoc systems in place. There are fears that a

breakdown could contaminate the river and affect the entire town. This is a particular threat to

Harrietville, as it is crisscrossed by small water courses and building regulations specify the distances

required between waterways and any building activity. At present there are valuable areas that cannot

be utilized due to the lack of sewerage infrastructure.

Additionally, internet connectivity is limited within the area. While enhancement devices are available,

not everyone in the community may be willing to purchase these, and tourists visiting the area may

not know that mobile or internet coverage is not up to the standard they expect or are familiar with.

This has been a problem in emergency situations, especially for tourists unfamiliar with the area and

is also a limiting factor for tourism marketing, communications and management as it makes day-to-

day tourism operations more difficult (e.g. internet bookings). While there has been the supply of

additional internet ports in 2014, connectivity remains relatively limited to meet demand by business

and visitors.

Environmental change

The increased frequency, intensity and timing of fires in recent years have begun to cause substantial

environmental change. The succession of intense fires approximately every three years since 2003

has, in particular, had severe consequences for a number of plant species. The most substantial

impact has been on the regeneration of the tall Alpine Ash (Eucalyptus delegatensis), a species that

need to be able to mature before they can regenerate. As Fairman (2013) describes, Alpine Ash is an

‘obligate-seeder’ that germinate from seeds in contrast to many other species that can regenerate

from post-fire re-sprouting from the trunk and branches. Large areas of Alpine Ash were lost in 2013

and attempts to re-seed have been only partially successful because the stocks of available seed

soon became depleted, threatening to convert large areas of once beautiful forest into eucalyptus-free

shrublands. The seed banks can be replenished but ultimately it is a complex system and the impacts

of fire depend upon a myriad of factors such as the age and type of forest and landscape change.

Regeneration of trees cannot be addressed by reseeding alone. This is a particular concern from a

tourism perspective as it is the bushland that is the major asset for Harrietville’s tourism system. Burnt

forest is also more vulnerable to impact from tourism (e.g. erosion) and needs time to regrow before it

can be used for tourism activity sustainably.

The social and emotional effects of living in a bushfire-risk area

An important aspect in vulnerability and resilience is the human and social sensitivity of the

destination. It is self-evident that major fire events are traumatic for residents and visitors and these

impacts are experienced differently and unevenly. Age, gender, family composition, financial position

and other circumstances and conditions imply that community members, visitors and tourism

operators have varied experiences of fire events and similarly, experiences of fire have varied longer

term impacts.



46

The importance of gender (Tyler et al., 2012) and cultural diversity (Cary, Lindenmayer, & Dovers,

2003) has become increasingly recognised an important consideration in planning and management

of fire risk and events. The following quote vividly describes important sensitivities that particularly

impact on women and children living in Harrietville and the vulnerability it reveals.

I think that is something that is undermined, that the communities that live up here are often so

heavily involved [ ] in the community support networks: they are CFA members, they are Parks

Victoria employees, they are DEPI employees. If they’re a parent or a tourism operator, it

becomes secondary to the fact that they are now away on that particular incident. You can

literally go weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks in these communities up here and its just

women in town or its single mums all struggling because husbands are away fighting fires. [ ]

That has a massive impact on people’s ability to be resilient and to think clearly. They’re

exhausted, yet often the smoke haze kicks in, even if it’s a hundred kilometres in a different

direction, the smoke haze kicks in and it wears you down. It makes you wary, it makes you

tired, it makes potential visitors to the region sceptical about whether or not there is a fire

nearby. ‘I’m sure there is. I can smell it.’ It makes you a bit emotional because your partner is

out there. Last year we had three really serious incidents that community members [of a nearby

town] were involved in. They didn’t die but [ ] their family couldn’t function. They were crippled

and so as a result, every other female in town was then making lunches and doing kid drop-offs

and that kind of thing is really undermined, undervalued and under-understood. So, from a

resilience perspective, that just wears you down. I’m not scared of fires and I think our

communities are so well placed and resilient to the physicality of it. You know, ‘There’s fire

burning, and we know what we have to do. We’ve got a fire plan.’ Most people have a fire box

at their back door. Most people have a very considered plan and they know if they’re an

operator what they’re going to do for their guests, what they need to do for their kids, what they

need to do on Code Red days. All of those things are so real because every summer we live it.

I reckon the greater risk is that it eventually burns people out. You’re heightened for six months

of the year and that’s a whole community. The whole community is heightened. You call a

community meeting in any of these little towns, you get hundreds of people, not because

they’re going to hear anything new but because they want to know that everybody is doing it

together and they see all those familiar faces and ‘we’re all in this together’.

This interviewee highlights key factors that highlight both the resilience and vulnerability of Harrietville.

The strong community networks, community engagement and the extent to which businesses,

families and individuals are prepared and organised for fire events are highlighted. As the same time,

the quote illustrates the growing strain on the community in ways that are particularly relevant to

women with the increasing incidence of fire events.

Constraining factors in the system adaptiveness

Weaknesses in bushfire preparedness

A further constraining factor identified was that of community complacency in relation to fire planning.

Directly after a fire there is a focus on fire resilience building, but that focus begins to wain after

around 12 months and attendance at information events for example drops dramatically – until the

next fire event starts the cycle again. Incidents have also occurred where businesses have assured

tourists that it was safe while it was not. Complacency also occurs in planning for the potentially more

frequent and severe events in the future. While businesses are generally fire aware, few are actively

planning for the expected increases in risk and continue in a business-as-usual approach. Such an

approach does not factor in the increased risks presented by a changing climate.

Several constraining factors were also identified for tourism-specific weaknesses in bushfire

preparedness. For example, poor telephone, mobile and internet coverage limit the ability to contact

local residents as well as tourists. While tourism operators can effectively communicate with tourists

during an emergency, those staying in a holiday home for instance are much harder to reach. This

also applies to second home owners who often use houses between family and friends as a base for

the snow over winter. The visitor survey results show that more than half of the visitors surveyed

(51.8%) are not aware of any information about what to do in case of a bushfire in the area of

Harrietville, which also represents a constraining factor in bushfire preparedness.



Finally, bushfire perceptions are changing and while visitors are now more aware of fire, they are also

more scared, which can lead to unnecessary fear and panic.

Lack of communication between stakeholders during emergency and recovery

While the events of the 2013 fires have been well documented, the issues surrounding government

and community engagement were also important themes to emerge through the interviews.

Consistent with other research, key issues identified by community members and tourism operators

include:

• Early fire management (putting the fire out before it became a problem);

• Lack of reference to local knowledge and consultation (mistakes could have been avoided if local

advice had been followed (such as the loss of a historic site that was not marked on a fire

management map) “we have the resources and the knowledge especially the local knowledge,

which I believe they don’t use enough in my experience.”

• Protection of critical infrastructure (e.g. the Great Alpine Road) “if I look at tourism, it’s very hard for

me to focus on a pinpoint of one little town because I see the Great Alpine Road going through and

making sure that that’s open and looked after as an asset, one for Harrietville, two for tourism

abroad.”

• Management of road signage “[the road signage] was clearly written, yeah. It should have said road

open to Harrietville, closed to Mt. Hotham and just be made clear, instead of road closed to Hotham,

which people think they can’t go past that sign.”

• Land management decisions (track closures, access) “the management of this fire led to road and

bushwalking track closure – consequently, there was a complete loss of visitation to Harrietville for

the five-week period of the fire and beyond.”

• Allocation of resources (e.g. the river could have been cleared of debris before it flooded and

became a serious problem) “all the debris had come down prior to the floods and half blocked the

river but they didn’t find it important enough to clean the rivers out, so they left it.” “They might’ve

had a lot more potential of stopping the fire or managing the fire than what they did with the

helicopters trying to paint retardant lines was just futile. And as a taxpayer, an absolute waste of

money, like a lot of wasted time and a lot of wasted money.”

• Provision of safety and risk information (e.g. it frightened some people unnecessarily, caused panic)

“Well I think for the bushfire season, it’s having the information available putting it out, but not over

doing it. Keep it relevant, keep it timely, but don’t blow it out of proportion.”

While the issues identified above have been canvassed elsewhere (Hallowes, 2013), particularly in

relation to relationships between DEPI, the CFA and the community, they are factors that have

particular relevance in the context of the tourism economy.

4. 3. 3 Understanding resilience

Resilience is ‘the ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the

same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organisation, and the capacity to

adapt to stress and change’ (IPCC, 2007, p. 880) and is a direct expression of the strength of a

coupled human-environment system (Carpenter, Walker, Anderies, & Abel, 2001).

Enabling factors in sensitivity

Harrietville’s community characteristics

The Harrietville community is widely described as politically savvy, committed and organised, whilst

being tenacious and well resourced. They are strongly invested in the region itself and generally have

a wider perspective than simply as a place to operate their business – they are there for the lifestyle

that it offers, and they have a strong commitment to community wellbeing. Community members come

from a diverse range of backgrounds with many highly-skilled individuals with previous positions in

government or industry.



48

The town has many self-funded retirees in the community who are not necessarily reliant on income

from tourism, thereby reducing the overall dependence on tourism somewhat.

There is also a strong community pride in being self-sufficient and community spirit is deeply valued.

Most say that in a catastrophic bushfire event they would be determined to rebuild and start again.

There is a strong belief in the approach to “just pull your socks up and just get stuck in and just keep

going”. The community is concerned, but not afraid, of future fires. As one interviewee commented:

Having been a Harrietville resident, been through three bush fires, more, you know, ever

since as a kid I remember bushfires. I don’t remember the details of them, but you know,

that’s something that we live with…

Bushfire risk is a part of life that is accepted, while resilience and adaptiveness are necessary traits of

living in the bush - when there is a problem you “can’t just ring the CFA, they might be busy,

ambulance is half an hour away”. Often, it is new residents that struggle with the necessity to be self-

sufficient and the risk of living in the bush.

Developments in communication and engagement

With State government support, high priority has been given to improving communication and

engagement between, government, community and industry. One aim of these processes is to

incorporate local knowledge into policy development. A key initiative has been the creation of the

Harrietville Community Forum11 as a strategy and mechanism to enable community engagement in

the community in policy development, planning and decision making.

Out of this fire came the Harrietville community forum and out of that a decision was made that

we needed to repair and build the relationships with agencies. [ ] So, the meetings you

attended yesterday would never have happened in the past.

The Harrietville Community Forum is now an incorporated body, which is important because

people in the town then become members and we work closely, as I said, with the other

agencies. That’s probably the biggest single advance that we’ve made is with the cooperation,

collaboration and working alongside of all of the other agencies that work here – you know,

firefighters, emergency services, Parks & Wildlife, State Forest, Victoria Roads, council – all of

those people.

At a local government level, there has also been the formation of a ‘Resilience Committee’ comprised

of elected community members and formed following the fires over January and February 2013. This

committee is an evolution of an earlier community building committee in operation since 2007. The

specific aim of the committee is to improve communications between the community and authorities

responsible for fire and infrastructure management. Agencies represented come from across

government sectors including human services, roads, fire services, parks management and other

relevant agencies. There is a common belief that the committee has been highly successful in

resolving some major tensions following from the way in which the 2013 were managed. For instance,

a new committee has been created to improve departments working together and the new policy for

communications and engagement is visible throughout the board:

We have to be flexible on how we engage so, you know, meeting with the Harrietville

Community Forum which was born out of the Harrietville fire, I suppose, and working with the

Aline Shire resilience committee. It’s about I suppose identifying what needs to be done but

then making a commitment to what we’re going to do and then informing the community all the

way.

11 The forum is an evolution of earlier community engagement committees supported by the Alpine Shire and State Government community

strengthening strategies.



Low Seasonality

While traditionally seasonal, visitation to Victoria’s High Country is consistent throughout the year (by

quarter) with a slight peak during winter (Tourism Victoria, 2012). Harrietville’s busiest periods occur

around the Christmas and Easter holidays (with continuously busy period from November until the

start of May), around larger events and festivals (e.g. cycling) and on weekends throughout the ski

season depending on snow conditions. Events and festivals usually occur in the warmer months and

coincide with the fire season. Low seasonality is an important factor in enabling resilience as year-

round visitation presents a more stable and diversified system, which is more likely to be able to

absorb shocks and stressors. While tourism businesses in Harrietville do experience variations in

visitation throughout the year with February being the traditionally quietest month, it is positive to see

that Harrietville is becoming ‘a four-season destination’. One interviewee commented that

‘[Harrietville] is now a year-round visiting area, [] we’re getting more visitors in autumn than we’re

getting in the ski season.’ Activities like bushwalking, mountain-biking and cycling are becoming an

important part of tourism in the region, supported by increasing investment in tracks and trails

infrastructure. Also because of the fact that the community is mainly made of lifestyle seekers, it is

less sensitive to tourism seasonality as ‘This is a place to come when you’re made a decision in your

life that my lifestyle’s more important than my income’.

Diversification and repeat visitation

In common with the NE Region (Tourism North East, 2013), visitors to Harrietville can largely be

grouped within two market segments - “habituals” (representing 28% of regional visitors) who are

long-term repeat visitors who are highly knowledgeable about the region, who tend to return to the

same location and often travel with the same group. At a regional level, “lifestyle leaders” are

identified as the growth segment (40%) which is now the dominant target audience for regional

strategic planning.

They are people who are more likely to take—instead of taking two two-week breaks a year,

they’re more likely to take ten three-day breaks and they don’t want to look at things vicariously.

They want to be absolutely in there, boots and all. They want to be doing workshops and they

want to be doing cooking classes and they want hands-on experiences.

While ‘lifestyle leaders’ provide opportunities for tourism diversification, ‘habitual’ visitors offer stability

and are less sensitive to negative information. The visitor survey conducted specifically for this project

suggest that Harrietville attracts a higher proportion of this segment with 67 per cent of respondents

being repeat visitors and highly connected and attached to Harrietville.

Regional tourism marketing and strategy

Harrietville’s tourism interests are represented by North East Tourism (regional tourism board), which

is an important enabling factor for resilience. By providing strategic planning and marketing for the

region, promoting a positive and safe image and by being on the incident control team in a crisis to

represent tourism interests, it plays an important role in building resilience in tourism. Overall, the

tourism industry in the region is becoming more sophisticated in its ability to feed back into policy

development.

4. 3. 4 Enabling factors in the system adaptiveness

Emergency responses

While there have been tensions over fire and land management decisions, there is also considerable

community investment in, and engagement with emergency response processes and agencies. For

instance, there is great community trust in the Harrietville CFA. There is also considerable

appreciation of local, state and regional agencies. For example, the risk of water contamination during

the 2013 floods was averted through the provision of portable water and chlorine filter treatment. The

perceived strength of Victoria’s overall emergency response system provides an instrumental

enabling factor on which resilience for tourism can be built. Until recently, tourism was not a priority in

immediate emergency response, but awareness is growing, and new systems and processes are

being put in place.



50

The development of the Harrietville Community Forum has created the discussion [how to

engage the community better] and I think generally history shows that the agencies, whether it

be fire or flood, have done a very good job at protecting the life and property and that kind of

thing. So, in terms of the emergency response side of things for bushfire suppression, I’d say

the planning has been quite adequate but as we talked about before, it’s about bringing the

community on with them. So, I suppose there’s potential for improving that space but there’s no

silver bullet.

While this is an ongoing process, immediate emergency responses are widely recognised as highly

successful in the protection of life and property. Both the system in itself, as well as community trust in

this system, is an important dimension of the capacity of the system to adapt to future fire risks.

Adaptations in policy and planning

Adaptations are now taking place with the aim to improve relationships, communication and

engagement for bushfire planning, emergency management and recovery. The Community

Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) for Harrietville, for instance, is being developed between

Victoria’s fire agencies, emergency services partners and the community (including DEPI, Parks

Victoria, SES, CFA, Alpine Shire and the Harrietville Community Forum). It aims to support people in

Harrietville to be better prepared and manage the risks from bushfire, flood and landslide events

before, during and after emergencies. As the draft plan states, “the development of this Harrietville

CEMP signals a key milestone in building relationships to develop a local community based ‘all-

natural hazards’ emergency management plan for the Harrietville community.”

The CEMP includes a generic CFA plan with input from the community and a separate sheet for

tourism operators providing important contact numbers and guidelines on how to advise tourists

during times of risk, which is a new approach not available in the past. Local priorities are emphasised

in the plan to recognise the importance of developing local solutions. It also highlights the importance

of building relationships between agencies and community, and with locals and visitors.

While such a plan provides an important step in bringing agencies and community together and

working on a plan for tourism (both locals and visitors), its effectiveness relies community

engagement and implementation. The potential for success is enhanced by the involvement of the

Harrietville Community Forum which plays a key role in the development and implementation of the

plan.

4. 4 Summary of findings

The vulnerability/ resilience (VR) assessment for the tourism sector in Harrietville has revealed

several external shocks and stressors. The major shocks (rapid onset) for Harrietville were identified

as bushfires and related flooding and landslides, while stressors were identified as the bushfire-

related risks of sensationalized media coverage, disruptions caused by fire-fighting operations and

road and track closures, as well as stressors that play a role in bushfire risk but are not caused by a

bushfire event. These general stressors were identified as heat waves, preventative control burns and

climate change.

Several factors were identified that influence the vulnerability of Harrietville’s tourism system.

Vulnerability can be conceptualized as a destination’s exposure and the constraining factors in

sensitivity and adaptiveness. In terms of exposure, while Harrietville is located in a valley offering

protection, it nonetheless is situated in a valley surrounded by large areas of bushland and thereby

making it susceptible to bushfire-related risks. Constraining factors in sensitivity for Harrietville are a

strong dependence on nature-based tourism and tourism transit with only limited potential for

diversifying the product beyond nature-based and strongly weather dependent tourism activities, a

sensitive destination image, constraining government processes, barriers to development as well as

the social and emotional effects of living in a bushfire-risk area. Constraining factors in system

adaptiveness for Harrietville were identified as weaknesses in bushfire preparedness and a lack of

communication between stakeholders during emergencies and recovery.



However, vulnerability cannot be viewed in isolation from resilience, which refers to the enabling

factors in sensitivity and adaptiveness. Enabling factors in the sensitivity of Harrietville’s tourism

systems were identified as the particular characteristics of the local community, developments in

communication and engagement, low seasonality, diversification within the nature-based tourism

segment, repeat visitation as well as representation at the regional level. Enabling factors in the

system adaptiveness were identified as the level of emergency responses as well as adaptations in

policy and planning.



52

Section Five: Implications for policy and

strategies

5. 1. Overview

While Australia has always been fire prone, projections are that Australia is very likely to experience

longer bushfire seasons and increased number of days with extreme fire danger (Hughes & Steffen,

2013). Susceptibility of tourism to the impacts of bushfire has been well documented in the literature

(Cioccio & Michael, 2007; Sanders et al., 2008). In order to sustain tourism economies, it is therefore

crucial that the tourism destinations make concerted efforts to reduce their vulnerability and

strengthen their resilience to the bushfire risks. The purpose of this section is to identify the

implications of project findings in relation to the economic impacts of bushfire and strategic priorities

necessary to build resilience of destination Harrietville and as an example to small tourism

destinations more broadly.

A key foundation for the adaptation of small tourism destinations to bushfire risk is to understand and

map in some detail the tourism profile (demand and supply) of the area in order to estimate the

economic value of tourism to the destination. For Harrietville, this was undertaken by a combination of

visitor survey, business operator and other stakeholder interviews, analysis of national, state and

regional tourism related data sets to map tourism activity and spend. This ‘map’ of tourism informed a

vulnerability/resilience assessment and an analysis of the impact of bushfire on the area’s tourism

economy. For example, it is estimated that a bushfire might cause a decline in income from tourism of

between $510,000 to $1,530,000 from the approximately $6.3 million total income in 2013.

The vulnerability/resilience (VR) assessment for the tourism sector in Harrietville in this project is

informed by the literature relating to tourism adaptation to climate change. According to the IPCC

definition, adaptation refers to a process of adjustment to actual or expected climate, and its effects,

in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities (IPCC, 2011). This assessment takes the

vulnerability/resilience-based approach to adaptation, which offers a more holistic approach than the

traditionally dominant hazards/impacts-based approach, seeking to understand the complex

interactions between external risks and the affected system’s conditions (IPCC, 2007). Informed by

comprehensive understanding of exposure, vulnerability, and resilience of a destination, more

targeted adaptation strategies can be developed.

The vulnerability/resilience assessment has revealed the exposure and vulnerability of Harrietville’s

tourism to a range of risks together with bushfires, and also identified factors that make its tourism

system resilient. This section presents the key policy and strategic implications of such understanding

for building resilience and adaptive capacity of Harrietville’s tourism system. In making these

recommendations, however, we are mindful that this project is undertaken in the context of a highly

dynamic policy environment and that the town and the region, is engaged in multiple and overlapping

planning processes and initiatives aimed at minimising the incidence of, and harm caused by fires.

Given this context, some of the proposed adaptations and initiatives may duplicate recommendations

being made from other sources of advice and/or are already widely recognised as a priority by the

community, industry and government stakeholders. While we recognise this overlap, all

recommendations relevant to the tourism economy are included.

5. 2. Policy and Planning

5. 2. 1 The development of a community tourism development plan

As discussed, Harrietville is characterised by a range of both resilience and vulnerability features.

Many of these characteristics, however, are ‘double-edged’ in the sense that what makes Harrietville

resilient (e.g. abundant in nature-based tourism attractions and a strong community), are the same

features that makes the town vulnerable (e.g. vulnerable to fire damage and economically vulnerable

given the reliance on nature-based tourism). There are also opportunities to minimise economic

vulnerability through tourism development and there have been gaps and opportunities for the

development of visitor services identified by business operators and the community.



Developments such as the extension of the bicycle rail trail between Bright and Harrietville also offers

potential for future business development with the potential for increased visitation. Capturing these

opportunities, however, has implications for the town’s size and character and raises questions about

the type and mix of developments that might be encouraged. These questions could be usefully

considered by local operators and community members as part of a community tourism planning

process. This process could also engage with questions around addressing vulnerabilities such as the

impact of control burns. For example, the presence of smoke from burn-offs could be incorporated as

part of an authentic seasonal experience in the region. Such a planning process might be facilitated in

collaboration with North East Tourism and the Alpine Shire, in concert with the broader regional

tourism strategy, but with a focus on key directions for Harrietville as a unique destination in its own

right.

5. 2. 2 Strengthen Harrietville’s destination image as a year-round destination

An important resilience characteristic of tourism in Harrietville is that the township is relatively less

sensitive to tourism seasonality even though it does experience variations in visitation throughout the

year. A range of outdoor activities is generating popularity among visitors in the region with strong

investment in infrastructure, driving increasing year-round visitations. However, opportunities exist in

the development of new marketing strategies to promote Harrietville as a four-season destination.

Strategies such as the development and promotion of new walking trails, and services for cyclists,

and encouraging the development of back-packer accommodation are all potential strategies that

could contribute to higher visitation.

5. 2. 3 Strengthen Harrietville’s image as a fire prepared destination.

Tourism heavily relies on image perception to generate visitors (Cioccio & Michael, 2007). While

Harrietville receives a large number of repeat visitors who tend to come back regardless of potential

fire risk, an image as a fire prepared destination is crucial for Harrietville to attract new visitors and

retain repeat visitors who are increasingly concerned about the bushfire risk. Specific marketing

campaigns may be developed to promote Harrietville as a resilient destination to fire risk, and

collective approaches to promotion may be explored by working with the regional tourism board North

East Tourism.

5. 2. 4 Improve disaster preparedness and further build capacity in emergency responses by

community, and industry levels.

Although the community and tourism businesses in Harrietville demonstrated general awareness of

fire risk, the assessment suggests that community complacency in relation to fire planning needs to

be better addressed. This requires the community and tourism businesses to take the initiative, for

example, to attend information events offered by government, to use the resources available for them,

and to take actions to plan for the increased risks resulting from a changing climate. At the same time,

government needs to be innovative and proactive in engaging the community and tourism businesses

in fire planning and management.

5. 2. 5 Develop mechanisms for better use of local knowledge in bushfire preparedness and

management.

The importance of local knowledge in natural resource management, disaster management and

emergency management is well reported in the literature (Mercer et al., 2007). Current research in

disaster risk reduction also recognises the challenges in how local, traditional, and indigenous

knowledge and scientific knowledge can by effectively combined to reduce vulnerability to

environmental hazards (Mercer et al., 2007). The vulnerability/resilience assessment of Harrietville

reveals that the tourism community faces such challenges. While it has been stronger focus by all

stakeholders on incorporating local knowledge in policy development, there is an opportunity for ‘a

constant process of collaboration and exchange’ (Mercer et al., 2007, p. 253), to facilitate effective

communication and develop mutual respect among all stakeholders, and to enable them to learn from

each other. To this end, communication again lies at the centre of building resilience.



54



5. 3. Awareness raising and communications

5. 3. 1 Improve fire awareness and preparedness of visitors

The assessment also reveals weakness in bushfire awareness and preparedness by visitors, which

needs greater emphasis in future capacity building efforts. The visitor survey data showed that more

than half of the visitors surveyed are not aware of any information about what to do in case of a

bushfire in Harrietville. This brought to light the need to provide awareness programmes on risk and

emergency responses for tourists. There is a particular need for effective and targeted communication

and awareness with four visitor types. These include:

• visitors staying in holiday homes where it is difficult to obtain hands-on assistance and timely

information in emergency compared to those staying with tourism operators;

• first time visitors who show low awareness of the incidence of fire and measures to prepare for fire;

• campers in the State parks, particularly those who are international visitors;

• a small segment (14%) of ‘habitual’ visitors who were also unaware of fire risk

5. 3. 2 Continue to improve communication between public and private sectors and between

government agencies

Stakeholders across government, industry and community have made remarkable progress in

improving communication for better emergency management for Harrietville. The Harrietville

Community Forum now serves as an effective mechanism to enable community engagement in policy

development, planning and decision making. The Fire Services Commissioner plays a critical role in

coordinating consultations between community and government agencies. Government agencies are

increasingly working closely with each other in a more coordinative manner. These developments in

communication and stakeholder engagement represent a strong enabling factor for vulnerability

reduction and resilience building. While this strategy has been highly effective, there is a risk that

enthusiasm for forums will dissipate over time, particularly while there is no immediate fire threat over

a period of time. Continued government support for sustaining the community/inter-agency forums is

a high priority for future planning and minimising the social and economic impacts of fire on the

community.

5. 3. 3 Refine communications and consultation in relation to road closure

From a systems perspective of tourism, transport is an essential element of the tourism system to

support the effective and sustainable functioning of the destination. Availability of infrastructure and

transport options presents an important factor affecting the destination’s vulnerability and resilience

level. Located on the Great Alpine Road, Harrietville heavily relies on the road as the major lifeline for

tourism. The Great Alpine Road is indeed the only access in and out of Harrietville as it is nestled in a

narrow valley surrounded by bushland. The draft Community Emergency Management Plan for

Harrietville highlights the importance of Great Alpine Road by recognising ‘support agencies to keep

the Great Alpine Road open unless unsafe to do so’ as one of the local priorities for 2014. This calls

for more effective coordination of road management and fire management. When road closure

becomes necessary for safety reasons, one improvement that can be made in operations is to ensure

that road signage is not misleading and provides adequate and accurate information about closure

including details of closure points and opening times. This is particularly necessary to minimise the

time periods in which visitors are deterred.

5. 3. 4 Media representations of fire

A widely expressed concern of community members and tourism operators related to the media

coverage of the 2013 fire. Of particular concern was that the fire was misleadingly and unnecessarily

named the ‘Harrietville Fire’ when in actuality, the fire travelled some distance around Harrietville and

caused no property damage within Harrietville itself. The related concern was that while there was

wide coverage by the media when the fire was burning, there was little news after the fire had passed

or explanation to the public when it was safe to return.



56

Coupled with misleading road signage, return visitation was unnecessarily delayed through false

impressions of the extent of damage as well as access to Harrietville. Consideration needs to be

given to the tourism implications of terminology used to describe fire events.

5. 3. 5 Post-fire communications strategy

While it is not possible to quantify the extent to which post-fire impressions have affected visitation,

tourism operators reported cancellations for accommodation bookings throughout 2013 and gave

examples of visitors who wrongly believed that the damage from the 2013 fires was much more

extensive than was actually the case. One element of tourism planning should incorporate the

development of a post-fire communications strategy that would accurately inform visitors about

accessibility of the town and the local area.

5. 4. Structural issues

5. 3. 6 Address infrastructure barriers – internet connectivity and sewerage

Following from a tourism planning process, prioritise and address infrastructure barriers that are

currently limiting tourism development. These include the development of a mains sewerage system

as well as improvements in internet connectivity.

5. 5. Business Management

5. 3. 7 Support business planning by tourism operators

While tourism businesses in Harrietville have been financially impacted by fires, these impacts have

not led to business closures and have largely been absorbed and accepted as part of life living in the

mountains. An important resilience measure, however, is to support and encourage business planning

to better plan and prepare for the financial impacts of fire given the likelihood that fires in the area will

increase in frequency and intensity.

5. 6. Research

5. 6. 1 Evaluation

Following from above, the establishment of the Alpine Shire Resilience committee and the Harrietville

Community Forum have both been widely applauded as being highly successful in improving

communications, good will, and planning coordination between agencies, community and industry.

Future support of these forums would usefully include an evaluation component in to capture and

transfer learnings from the implementation of the forums as well as to identify how the forums might

continuously improve and be sustainable over the longer term.

5. 6. 2 Development of a “Small tourism destination valuation and fire risk adaptation tool

kit”

The research for this report has clearly indicated the enormous importance of tourism to livelihoods of

Harrietville residents and the risk bushfire poses to these livelihoods. It has further highlighted the

crucial importance of the local tourism industry and wider local community to greatly enhance their

adaptation to risk most importantly bushfire risk. To undertake this effectively is a multifaceted task

including mapping and valuing tourism, estimating vulnerability/resilience of the sector to bushfire and

other risks and developing and implementing an adaptation strategy.

But Harrietville is but one of many such small destinations. By the very nature of their smallness, such

destinations lack the range of resources to develop such a comprehensive adaptation strategy.

Hence, we believe it might be useful for Victorian Government agencies to develop a “Small tourism

destination valuation and fire risk adaptation tool kit” to assist similar small tourism destinations to

Harrietville develop adaptation strategies to bushfire and other risk. Based on our study in Harrietville

the components of such a tool kit might involve the steps illustrated in Figure 10.



Figure 10. Elements of a small tourism destination valuation and fire risk adaptation tool kit.

5. 6. 3 Replication

More broadly, the project has considerable potential for replication in several ways. First, each of the

methodologies implemented as part of a mixed method approach could be implemented as individual

strategies that could inform various aspects of resilience building in small tourism destinations.

Specifically, individual methods that could be replicated include:

• The visitor survey: The survey design was informed by the broader tourism literature to identify

tourism values in the area but adapted to further investigate visitor perceptions of bushfire risk,

bushfire preparedness and visitor responses to the threat of bushfire. This survey instrument could

be readily adapted and applied in other small areas to inform planners about visitor characteristics,

tourism values and levels of awareness in relation to bushfire risk.

• Estimating the value of tourism spend and economic impact of fire: The project shows how tourism

value can be estimated by drawing on secondary data collected at the federal level and by the

application of an I/O analysis. A similar process could be applied at other small destinations.

• Community consultations and in-depth interviews: The third main form of data involved extensive

community/industry/government consultation and the conduct of in-depth interviews. This process

yielded very rich qualitative data that revealed key tensions, perspectives and shared priorities in

relation to minimising the impacts of fire on tourism.

• The application of an adapted tourism vulnerability and resilience assessment framework: drawing

on all data gathered for the project, the analysis was guided by the framework highlighting key

priorities for minimising future impacts and building resilience. Again, this framework could be

applied in destinations with similar characteristics and with available data.

5. 7. Concluding comments

The intention of this study was to assess the economic value and vulnerability of nature-based

tourism in the Alpine region of Victoria to bushfire. The study has a particular focus on Harrietville

which is a small and arguably unique destination. Nonetheless, the town shares characteristics with

many other small destinations across Victoria and Australia that similarly face the likelihood of

increasingly frequent and intense bushfires.

The findings show that while the town and the region have been economically affected by fire, the

community and the local economy are also highly resilient.



58

To a large extent, the losses generated by fire have been absorbed. However, the most recent fire in

2013, as the fourth major fire event since 2002, revealed a number of vulnerabilities and strains on

the tourism system and on the environmental systems upon which nature-based tourism relies. The

need for adaptation in preparedness for future fires is widely acknowledged and there are multiple

strategic planning processes currently in motion in relation to improving fire management systems

and building community resilience.

This project has a specific focus on the tourism economy and strategies have been identified that

have the potential to minimise the future impacts of bushfire on nature-based tourism. The intention is

that the community and the varied stakeholders engaged in the tourism economy within the region

and beyond will consider and embrace the strategic priorities identified by the project as part of the

broader initiative of adapting to climate change. It is also hoped that the methodology and learnings

can be applied in other small towns and regions across Victoria. Ultimately, the intention is that the

project findings will contribute to an on-going process of sustainable tourism development capable of

adapting to the climate challenges ahead.



References

Alpine Shire Council. (2011). Alpine Shire Business Survey 2011. Bright, Victoria: Alpine Shire Council.

Alpine Shire Council. (2013). Market Profile Summer 2013: BRIGHT · MYRLTEFORD · MOUNT BEAUTY · HARRIETVILLE.

Baker, K., & Coulter, A. (2007). Terrorism and tourism: the vulnerability of beach vendors' livelihoods in Bali. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(3), 249-266.

Burak, S. a., Dogan, E., & Gazioglu, C. (2004). Impact of urbanization and tourism on coastal environment. Ocean & Coastal Management, 47(9), 515-527.

Calgaro, E. (2010). Building resilient tourism destination futures in a world of uncertainty: assessing destination vulnerability in Khao Lak, Patong and Phi Phi Don, Thailand to the 2004 Tsunami. Sydney: (Pacific Tourism – Climate Adaptation Project No. 76). Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University.

Calgaro, E., Lloyd, K., & Dominey-Howes, D. (2014). From vulnerability to transformation: a framework for assessing the vulnerability and resilience of tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(3), 341-360.

Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8), 765–781.

Cary, G., Lindenmayer, D., & Dovers, S. (2003). Australia burning fire ecology, policy and management issues Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO; London: Eurospan.

CFA. ( 2014). Harrietville Community Information Guide – Bushfire. In C. F. Authority (Ed.).

Cioccio, L., & Michael, E. J. (2007). Hazard or disaster: Tourism management for the inevitable in Northeast Victoria. Tourism Management, 28, 1-11.

Dwyer, L., & Spurr, R. (2010). Tourism Economics Summary: STCRC Centre for Economics and Policy.

Easterbrook, P. (2013). Harrietville Community Atlas 2013 (pp. 1-47). Bright, Victoria: Alpine Shire Council.

Fairman, T. (2013, February 21). Ash to ashes - what could the 2013 fires mean for the future of our forests?, The Conversation Media Trust.

Faulkner, B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tourism Management, 22(2), 135-147.

Gunn, C. A. (1994). Tourism planning : basics, concepts, cases (3 ed.). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Hallowes, M. (2013). Harrietville Fire 2013: report to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Victoria, Australia: Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner, State Government of Victoria Department of Justice.

Hughes, L., & Steffen, W. (2013). Be prepared: climate change and the Australian bushfire threat. Potts Point, NSW: Climate Council of Australia Ltd.

IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. New York: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

IPCC. (2011). Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), Summary for Policy Makers. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Jiang, M., & DeLacy, T. (2014). A climate change adaptation framework for Pacific Island tourism. In T. DeLacy, M. Jiang, G. Lipman & S. Vorster (Eds.), Green Growth and Travelism: Concept, Policy and Practice for Sustainable Tourism (pp. 225-240). London: Routledge.

Kasperson, R. E., Turner, B. L., Schiller, A., & Hsieh, W.-H. (2001). Research and assessment systems for sustainability: framework for vulnerability. Paper presented at the the meeting of AIACC Project Development Workshop: Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation Trieste, Italy.



60

Kookana, J., & Duc Pham, T. (2013). Tourism's Contribution to the Australian Economy: 1997-98 to 2011-12. Canberra: Tourism Research Australia, Retrieved from http://tra.gov.au/documents/Economic-Industry/Tourisms_Contribution_97-98_to_2011-12_FINAL_3JUL13.pdf.

Leiper, N. (2004). Tourism management. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia.

Mercer, J., Dominey-Howes, D., Kelman, I., & Lloyd, D. (2007). The potential for combining indigenous and western knowledge in reducing vulnerability to environmental hazards in small island developing states. Environmental Hazards, 7, 245-256.

Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth interviewing : principles, techniques, analysis (2 ed.). Melbourne: Longman Australia Pty Ltd.

Mt Hotham Resort. (2013). Mt Hotham weekly car counts 2012/13. Mt Hotham: Mt Hotham Resort Management Board, unpublished data.

North East Victoria Tourism Board. (2012). North East Victoria Tourism Board: Strategic Plan and Implementation Actions 2012 - 2014. Beechworth, VIC: North East Victoria Tourism Board.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Phillimore, J., & Goodson, L. (Eds.). (2004). Qualitative research in tourism: ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. London: Routledge.

Prideaux, B. (2004). The need to use disaster planning frameworks to respond to major tourism disasters: Analysis of Australia's response to tourism disasters in 2001. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15(4), 281-298.

Richter, L. K., & Waugh Jr, W. L. (1986). Terrorism and tourism as logical companions. Tourism Management, 7(4), 230-238.

Ritchie, B. (2008). Tourism disaster planning and management: From response and recovery to reduction and readiness. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(4), 315-348.

Sanders, D., Laing, J., & Houghton, M. (2008). Impact of bushfires on tourism and visitation in Alpine national parks. Gold Coast, Australia: CRC for Sustainable Tourism. .

Scott, D., de Freitas, C., & Matzarakis, A. (2009). Adaptation in the tourism and recreation sector. In K. L. Ebi, I. Burton & G. R. McGregor (Eds.), Biometeorology for adaptation to climate variability and change (pp. 171-194). Dordrecht: Springer.

Sharpley, R. (2005). The tsunami and tourism: A comment. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(4), 344-349.

Tourism Australia. (2011). Tourism 2020: Whole of government working with industry to achieve Australia’s tourism potential. Sydney, Australia: Tourism Australia.

Tourism North East. (2013). Tourism North East: 2013/14 – 2015/16 Strategic Plan and Implementation Actions. Beechworth, VIC: Tourism North East.

Tourism Research Australia. (2014). National Visitor Survey Retrieved from http://www.tra.gov.au/aboutus/national-visitor-survey.html.

Tourism Victoria. (2012). Victoria’s High Country market profile: year ending 2012: Tourism Victoria.

TRA. (2011). The Economic Importance of Tourism in Australia’s Regions. Canberra, Australia.

TRA. (2013). Domestic Travel By Australians. http://www.tra.gov.au/statistics/domestic-travel-by-australians.html

Tyler, M., Fairbrother, P., Chaplin, S., Mees, B., Phillips, R., & Toh, K. (2012). Gender matters: Applying a gendered analysis to bushfire research in Australia. . Working Papers in Sustainable Organisations in Australia, 3(1).

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters. London: Routledge.



Appendix 1 Map and time series of the progress of the 2013 fires

APPENDICES



62

Appendix 2 Harrietville Visitor Survey





64





66

Appendix 3 In-depth interviews schedule

The following questions were provided the basis for open ended in-depth interviews. The relevance

of the questions to each interviewee, however, varied depending on the interviewee and their

circumstances.

What was your experience of fires in Harrietville?

What was the impact on tourism? (visitor perceptions, financial, environmental, reputational, infrastructure)

What has been managed well in relation to fire preparedness/management/prevention?

What wasn’t managed well?

What are the natural areas of high tourism value around Harrietville (map)

What are the areas of high fire risk in relation to tourism? (map)

What are the strengths of Harrietville to withstand the impacts of fire (resilience factors)?

What are weaknesses (vulnerabilities) of Harrietville to withstand the fires?

What are the main priorities in terms of fire management/preparation/prevention?

And what do you think need to be done to make tourism more resilient to fires in Harrietville?

To what extent are you concerned about the future potential fire risks?

(Depending on the interviewee) what have you already been doing to make your

business/organisation/community more prepared?



delwp.vic.gov.au

Documents

Assessing the economic value and vulnerability of nature ... · actually safe to do so. Given that the most popular activities of visitors include bushwalking, fishing and picnicking